Vendetta: State Of Colorado Goes After Cake Maker Jack Phillips Again

Nah,this seems like the baker chose his battle pretty well to me.

On one hand, contra to your worry that something is being made up here, Christian belief on gender is explicit and well established. One need not agree with the gentleman's view, but he isn't making something up to avoid civil law. Also, civil law is not well established here.

On the other, the baker also was not refusing all services to anyone, he simply refused to make custom cakes for things which cut against his beliefs. There are plenty of examples of people refusing this exact service with no problems, including people refusing to bake pro-Trump cakes, and the Colorado Commission also seems to have allowed a different baker to refuse to bake a cake with bible verses against homosexuality on it.

Finally, the Supreme Court, in a 7-2 ruling, found that the Colorado Commission was being hostile to the man on the basis of his religion. This wasn't a narrow, partisan ruling.

He is refusing based on gender and sexual orientation. Put another way; a couple walk in, one white one black. They want a black and white cake or something like that, sort of symbolizing their union, baker will make them a "normal" cake but refuses black and white based on his personal beliefs (that is what religious beliefs are) that people of different skin colors shouldn't marry - clear cut racial discrimination. The reasoning remains the same either way.

That may very well be how it's interpreted but that's not how I personally see the issue. I see it no different than the 1st issue regardless of the degree of required customization. I still hold that they would have been perfectly fine and likely gotten their cake if they hadn't stated what it was for or represented. Now, if he refused to sell them an already produced generic cake that was to be used for such a purpose then I would completely side with them. However, this in fact a custom order and given the colors chosen, not one he would likely normally make as I doubt there is much general call for such unless you stated it was to celebrate the birth of twins one male one female. That's not the case here and once again touches on his religious beliefs as he holds them. If nothing else, at least he's being consistent on his stance in that regard.

You see nothing wrong with creating the cake. You wouldn't though because you see nothing wrong with either gay marriage or trans issues. He apparently does based upon his religious beliefs. I would expect refusal as well if I went to an Islamic baker and asked for a bacon and chocolate cake. Well, I would expect it if they held their own religious beliefs as strongly as he apparently holds his own.

Shitty example, here is why - the Islamic baker wouldn't even carry the ingredients for those cakes. That would be like saying a vegan restaurant is discriminating for not making a steak, or a fish restaurant is discriminating for not carrying beef. Etc. Edit: Even if you're referring to making a cake that looks like chocolate or bacon, it's still not the same; human orientations do not include bacon and chocolate.

^^^THIS^^^

I’ve never understood any American that opposes this. Pro-freedom on everything else UNTIL you open a business then you no longer have freedom. If you want to keep your freedoms then don’t open a business, they say. How about the freedom to do business with whoever you want and the freedom to not do business with whoever you don’t want?

If I am selling my car I have the freedom to choose who I sell it to for any reason, or to not sell it to for any reason. Why is this freedom stripped from a person the moment they call it a business? How is the freedom of association not a fundamental right?

Ugly isn’t given any special privileges. These cake makers should just say, I’m not going to sell you a double dicked gay transformer cake because you are too fukkin ugly. No protection for ugly, or stinky breath, or being annoying. You can kick them out of your business all day long with no repercussions other than lost sales.

There is nothing more un-American than slaved labor and the stripping of freedom.

P u b l i c

b u s i n e s s.

You are openly advocating for the ability to discriminate based on race, ethnicity, gender/sex, sexual orientation, etc. There was a little thing called The Civil Rights Act that addressed this decades ago.

By the way, slave labor and stripping of freedom were quintessentially American for hundreds of years.
 
Last edited:
The reason why the SC voted 7-2 was because of the fact that Colorado was targeting this guy...judicial activism 101
 
He is refusing based on gender and sexual orientation. Put another way; a couple walk in, one white one black. They want a black and white cake or something like that, sort of symbolizing their union, baker will be them a "normal" cake but refuses black and white based on his personal beliefs (that is what religious beliefs are) that people of different skin colors shouldn't marry - clear cut racial discrimination. The reasoning remains the same either way.
If there was a religion that had such a belief enshired in its core tenants your example might bare more weight. Regardless, I stand by my position regarding his right as long as he remains consistent on his and his reason for it.
 
He is refusing based on gender and sexual orientation. Put another way; a couple walk in, one white one black. They want a black and white cake or something like that, sort of symbolizing their union, baker will make them a "normal" cake but refuses black and white based on his personal beliefs (that is what religious beliefs are) that people of different skin colors shouldn't marry - clear cut racial discrimination. The reasoning remains the same either way.

But he isn't. Suppose a gay couple's parents walk in to his shop. They are straight Christians. They want to order a cake for the gay wedding of their sons. He refuses. Certainly sexual orientation is involved, but that involvement is tangential.

Even more to the point, he isn't refusing all service to gay couples. He's willing to sell them wedding cakes. He isn't willing to participate in their wedding by designing a custom cake. He would be willing to design a custom cake for gay or transgender customers for other occasions.
 
But he isn't. Suppose a gay couple's parents walk in to his shop. They are straight Christians. They want to order a cake for the gay wedding of their sons. He refuses. Certainly sexual orientation is involved, but that involvement is tangential.

Even more to the point, he isn't refusing all service to gay couples. He's willing to sell them wedding cakes. He isn't willing to participate in their wedding by designing a custom cake. He would be willing to design a custom cake for gay or transgender customers for other occasions.
Like
 
If there was a religion that had such a belief enshired in its core tenants your example might bare more weight. Regardless, I stand by my position regarding his right as long as he remains consistent on his and his reason for it.
There doesn't need to be to examine the reasoning; it boils down to personal identity.

At one time Christians used their religion as an excuse to enslave black Africans and steal land, while others used it as a reason to attempt to free them.

But he isn't. Suppose a gay couple's parents walk in to his shop. They are straight Christians. They want to order a cake for the gay wedding of their sons. He refuses. Certainly sexual orientation is involved, but that involvement is tangential.

Even more to the point, he isn't refusing all service to gay couples. He's willing to sell them wedding cakes. He isn't willing to participate in their wedding by designing a custom cake. He would be willing to design a custom cake for gay or transgender customers for other occasions.

From the sound of things he would make a "heterosexual cake" though. There's the double standard. If they were asking for something explicit, that would be one thing. It's based on identity, and this line of reasoning could easily follow to other things, like skin tone, gender, etc.

In the second case, the cake isn't even unique at all, it's merely the coloration and reasoning.
 
P u b l i c

b u s i n e s s.

By the way, slave labor and stripping of freedom were quintessentially American for hundreds of years.

You’re making my point.

YOU advocate for slave labor and stripping of others freedoms when it doesn’t fit YOUR ideology. Then you justify your totalitarianism by saying, well, America did it before so it’s okay to do it again.

Wholly anti-freedom and anti-American. Disgusting.
 
You’re making my point.

YOU advocate for slave labor and stripping of others freedoms when it doesn’t fit YOUR ideology. Then you justify your totalitarianism by saying, well, America did it before so it’s okay to do it again.

Wholly anti-freedom and anti-American. Disgusting.
Okay, you're trolling. Fool me once and all that
 
From the sound of things he would make a "heterosexual cake" though. There's the double standard. If they were asking for something explicit, that would be one thing. It's based on identity, and this line of reasoning could easily follow to other things, like skin tone, gender, etc.

In the second case, the cake isn't even unique at all, it's merely the coloration and reasoning.

Of course he's willing to make a cake for a man and woman getting married. In orthodox (with a small o) Christianity, that's a wedding, while a homosexual union is not.

The point is that he is willing to provide some services to gay couples, but not to do anything he deems as active participation in that event himself. We can argue whether making a custom cake is artistic enough to be considered a significant participation in the wedding, and I wish the Supreme Court had ruled explicitly in this area, but the overt anti-Christian hostility of the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission was such that the Supremes voided the entire proceedings. However one feels about cakes, I think the baker drew the line in a reasonable place. I won't refuse you service, but I won't personally participate in any ceremony or celebration, whether Halloween or a gay wedding, that violates my religious convictions.

The real double standard seems to held by the Colorado Civil Rights commission, that found no problem with a baker refusing to bake a cake containing bible verses against homosexuality, but continues to persecute this guy after a stinging rebuke from the highest court in the land. Heads should roll.
 
They probably would have been fine if they hadn't apparently stated it was requested for. Also, by asking for a specific style of cake for a specified reason counter to his religious believes we end up back at square one like the 1st cake.

It's amazing that someone had to actually spell that out, but what else can one do with those that think themselves so clever it blinds them to the obvious.
 
Of course he's willing to make a cake for a man and woman getting married. In orthodox (with a small o) Christianity, that's a wedding, while a homosexual union is not.

The point is that he is willing to provide some services to gay couples, but not to do anything he deems as active participation in that event himself. We can argue whether making a custom cake is artistic enough to be considered a significant participation in the wedding, and I wish the Supreme Court had ruled explicitly in this area, but the overt anti-Christian hostility of the Colorado "Civil Rights" Commission was such that the Supremes voided the entire proceedings. However one feels about cakes, I think the baker drew the line in a reasonable place. I won't refuse you service, but I won't personally participate in any ceremony or celebration, whether Halloween or a gay wedding, that violates my religious convictions.

The real double standard seems to held by the Colorado Civil Rights commission, that found no problem with a baker refusing to bake a cake containing bible verses against homosexuality, but continues to persecute this guy after a stinging rebuke from the highest court in the land. Heads should roll.

It can easily be argued that bible verses against homosexuality are hateful. That's a clean cut argument if there ever was one. If you inserted any other identity in there it wouldn't be an issue. That's not a remotely analogous example.
 
It can easily be argued that bible verses against homosexuality are hateful. That's a clean cut argument if there ever was one. If you inserted any other identity in there it wouldn't be an issue. That's not a remotely analogous example.

Lol, so? It's an easy argument, and an obtuse one as well. But I'm glad you brought it up, because it illuminates the real issue here: culturally liberal people increasingly view Christians as bigots and are willing to use the state apparatus to force them to behave differently. It's wrong and the Supreme Court rightfully identified the Colorado Civil rights Commission's proceedings in this vein as hostile.

Christians, and Muslims, and Jews are under no compunction to recognize the sanctity of gay marriage.
 
Lol, so? It's an easy argument, and an obtuse one as well. But I'm glad you brought it up, because it illuminates the real issue here: culturally liberal people increasingly view Christians as bigots and are willing to use the state apparatus to force them to behave differently. It's wrong and the Supreme Court rightfully identified the Colorado Civil rights Commission's proceedings in this vein as hostile.

Christians, and Muslims, and Jews are under no compunction to recognize the sanctity of gay marriage.

It's not obtuse, no one is under any obligation to create something hateful if they don't want to.

A "verse" that is hostile toward a particular group is not the same as being a particular identity. A baker shouldn't be anymore compelled to create that than to create a cake with a swastika on it or one that says something nasty about women or anyone else.

Being religious =/= being bigoted. There's plenty of religious people who aren't bigots, and they get by just fine. It's the behavior, not the identity.
 
Seems utterly vindictive to keep going after the guy. Just get someone else to bake your fucking cake and stop trying to ruin someone's life to pay a victim.

Glad to see people saying businesses are right to deny alex jones their service are now out supporting this. Round and round we go.
 
Seems utterly vindictive to keep going after the guy. Just get someone else to bake your fucking cake and stop trying to ruin someone's life to pay a victim.

Glad to see people saying businesses are right to deny alex jones their service are now out supporting this. Round and round we go.


And notice the targeting only comes from one direction
 
It's not obtuse, no one is under any obligation to create something hateful if they don't want to.

A "verse" that is hostile toward a particular group is not the same as being a particular identity. A baker shouldn't be anymore compelled to create that than to create a cake with a swastika on it or one that says something nasty about women or anyone else.

Being religious =/= being bigoted. There's plenty of religious people who aren't bigots, and they get by just fine. It's the behavior, not the identity.

1. It seems contradictory to suggest the Bible is hateful and then say being religious =/= being bigoted in a context where being religious means being Christian. Perhaps I am mistaking your point on Bible verses being considered hateful, but despite your use of the passive voice in saying "it could easily be argued", when you add "it's clear cut" immediately afterward, this seems to indicate that in your view these verses are hateful.

Personally, I think religion can be a strong justification for bigotry. I simply don't think that is the case here. the baker doesn't have a problem with homosexuals, and is pleased to do business with them. But he won't participate in a homosexual marriage. He also won't participate in Halloween, but that doesn't make him bigoted against people who trick or treat.
2. To most Christians, and I presume Muslims, homosexuality and homosexual marriage are matters of behavior and not identity. That the modern homosexual movement has made them about identity does not mean Christians, or Muslims, should be forced to treat them thus as well.
 
1. It seems contradictory to suggest the Bible is hateful and then say being religious =/= being bigoted in a context where being religious means being Christian. Perhaps I am mistaking your point on Bible verses being considered hateful, but despite your use of the passive voice in saying "it could easily be argued", when you add "it's clear cut" immediately afterward, this seems to indicate that in your view these verses are hateful.

Particular passages, especially if we go Old Testament. Interpretations of the bible also vary extremely widely.

Personally, I think religion can be a strong justification for bigotry. I simply don't think that is the case here. the baker doesn't have a problem with homosexuals, and is pleased to do business with them. But he won't participate in a homosexual marriage. He also won't participate in Halloween, but that doesn't make him bigoted against people who trick or treat.

True, but the crux of disagreement (not simply between you and I, just generally) is that Halloween isn't a type of person, thus it's not anywhere near a 1:1 analog.

2. To most Christians, and I presume Muslims, homosexuality and homosexual marriage are matters of behavior and not identity. That the modern homosexual movement has made them about identity does not mean Christians, or Muslims, should be forced to treat them thus as well.

Well then they're wrong and need to get with the times, haha. No one to my knowledge chooses their sexual preference, and even if they did, no harm comes of being attracted to the same sex.

The state apparatus once decided that businesses didn't have the right to refuse service to black people. I see this along a similar vein, although this individual case is a bit different obviously because they didn't outright refuse service to them based on their sexuality, they found a gray area. I think though that if we swapped out "gay cake" for "interracial cake" the complexion changes.

As an aside, it should be noted that in matters like these, the state only made gay marriage legal due to increasing public pressure to do so, it's not like the government simply did this of their own accord. The public wanted equitable treatment of gay people.

Marriage itself is a choice, this is true, but it's not overall marriage they have a problem with.
 
Last edited:
Particular passages, especially if we go Old Testament. Interpretations of the bible also vary extremely widely.

Right, I understand the notion that some people find parts of the Bible hateful. I'm trying to square that with your view that being religious, which I take in this context to mean being Chrsitian, as not being hateful. Is it only if they agree with the parts you find acceptable?

Also, of course interpretations vary widely, however, a large majority of Christians, and Muslims, agree with interpretation that the Bible sees homosexual behavior as sinful. This is the most reasonable interpretation of the texts, and anyone familiar with the arguments can see that those suggesting otherwise are way out on a limb.

True, but the crux of disagreement (not simply between you and I, just generally) is that Halloween isn't a type of person, thus it's not anywhere near a 1:1 analog.[/QUOTE]
A homosexual wedding isn't a person either, it is a form of celebration, much like Halloween. It is a good analog. The facts in play demonstrate that the baker does not have a problem doing business with people who are homosexual, but he will not participate even obliquely in certain events, include homosexual weddings and Halloween.

Well then they're wrong and need to get with the times, haha. No one to my knowledge chooses their sexual preference, and even if they did, no harm comes of being attracted to the same sex.

To your knowledge. So based on your knowledge, we should use the apparatus of the state to crush businesses that don't comply with your view? That is what is being attempted here.

I am happy you have the right to disagree with Christians. I'd be even happier if you were willing to extend that right to Christians. Not long ago, tolerance was considered an important civic virtue.
 
This case is different from others because we're talking about custom cakes. The man is happy to sell LGBTBBQ members cakes off the shelf however he won't accept a special request that involves spending hours decorating a cake from scratch about a theme he disagrees with. It's like if you went to an artist and told them that you wanted to commission them into making something that disgusts them or something they don't feel comfortable painting, and the artist refused. Forcing them to do it would be mandated labour, that's fucked up. Protected classes in the context of mandated labour wouldn't even make sense, are you going to go to an artist who's an atheist and force them to draw them to draw pictures of Jesus Christ? That's why the courts went in favour of him.


I want someone to force a Muslim baker to bake a Moohammmmed head cake.
 
Back
Top