Colorado Supreme Court Declines to Hear Case of Baker Ordered to Make Cake for ‘Gay’ Celebration

PhillipsDENVER, Co. — The Colorado Supreme Court has declined to hear the case of a baker who was ordered to make a cake for an event celebrating the union of two homosexual men, allowing the lower court’s order to stand.

“Upon consideration of the Petition for Writ of Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals and after review of the record, briefs, and the judgment of said Court of Appeals, it is ordered that said Petition for Writ of Certiorari shall be, and the same hereby is denied,” it wrote in a brief order.

Two of the court’s seven judges said they would have accepted the case on religious freedom grounds.

As previously reported, last August, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld a lower court order against baker Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop, asserting that providing the cake for the event does not equal an endorsement of same-sex nuptials.

“Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece’s providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado’s public accommodations law,” it ruled.

In May, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had upheld a ruling by Judge Robert Spencer, who contended that Phillips should have made the cake because he was not told that there would be any words or symbols written on it.

Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to look for options for their upcoming same-sex ceremony celebration. As Colorado has a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the men planned to travel to Massachusetts and then return to Colorado for a separate celebration.

  • Connect with Christian News

However, after their arrival at the cake shop, Mullin and Craig were advised by Phillips that he does not make cakes for same-sex ceremonies.

“My first comment was, ‘We’re getting married,’ and he just shut that down immediately,” Craig stated.

Phillips told Christian News Network that he does not make cakes for such occasions because of his Christian convictions.

“I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, and I believe that the relationship is not something that He looks favorably on,” the master pastry chef stated. “If Jesus was a carpenter, He wouldn’t make a bed for this union.”

Phillips, who attends a Baptist church, explained that when he informed Mullin and Craig that his bakery does not make cakes for same-sex “weddings,” the men immediately left. He stated that one of them made a comment on his way out the door that the bakery was a “homophobic cake shop.”

Phillips said that he told the men that he would be happy to make them any other type of baked goods outside of having to facilitate the ceremony, which he believed was a form of personal participation. But Mullin and Craig complained to the Colorado Human Rights Commission with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and have prevailed in their case ever since.

“We all have a right to our personal beliefs, but we do not have a right to impose those beliefs on others and discriminate against them,” ACLU attorney Ria Tabacco Mar said in a statement on Monday. “We hope today’s win will serve as a lesson for others that equality and fairness should be our guiding principles and that discrimination has no place at the table, or the bakery as the case may be.”

But Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented Phillips in court, said that moral convictions are useless if they can’t be lived out.

“We asked the Colorado Supreme Court to take this case to ensure that government understands that its duty is to protect the people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally, not force them to violate those beliefs as the price of earning a living,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco in a statement.

“Jack, who has happily served people of all backgrounds for years, simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message and event with which he disagrees, and that freedom shouldn’t be placed in jeopardy for anyone,” he continued. “We are evaluating all legal options to preserve this freedom for Jack.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Michael C

    Do bakers have the “religious freedom” to refuse to sell a cake to an interfaith or interracial couple if they personally oppose their marriages?

    • scottrose

      Why ask?
      Just spin the story so that it makes you look good and makes Christians look like monsters.

    • Slidellman4life

      Mason’s Second Law: In any discussion over LGBTQW issues, sooner or later someone will compare sexual behavior to skin color.

      Absolutely freakin’ predictable.

      • Michael C

        Nope, I compared refusing service on the basis of personally held beliefs to refusing service on the basis of personally held beliefs.

        I was not attempting to claim that sexual orientation is akin to skin color just as I wasn’t attempting to claim that religion is akin to skin color. They’re all different, however, they’re all protected characteristics in the state of Colorado.

        Which bathroom should Michael Hughes and Aydian Dowling use?

        • Slidellman4life

          Nope

          Only in the false comparison. No matter how much you wish it to be, sexual behavior and skin color are not comparable, and never will be.

          • SFBruce

            Of course race is a different characteristic than sexual orientation, but it’s also true that both gay people and African-Americans have been unfairly marginalized. A growing number of Americans want to fix that.

          • Slidellman4life

            Of course race is a different characteristic than sexual orientation

            Make that behavior and you have it right. Homosexuality, like all types of sexual behavior, can be modified and changed.

          • Guest

            Homosexuality is no more a ‘behavior’ than the drive to church on Sunday is a ‘religion’.

          • SFBruce

            Sexual orientation is much more than behavior; it’s an identity. If I were celibate, I’d still be gay. All the studies I’ve seen indicate changing sexual orientation by force of will is virtually impossible. It’s not unlike handedness: I could force myself to write with my left hand, even though it’s completely unnatural for me to do so. Similarly, I could force myself into a marriage with a woman, but it would be unnatural for me, and completely unfair to her. Just as it doesn’t matter which hand I use the most, it doesn’t matter whether I love a man or a woman. What matters is the quality of that love: does it make us both better and complete; is this the person whose hopes and dreams I share and without whom I can’t imagine life?

          • Michael C

            Did you read my comment? Sexual orientation and race are not the same thing.

            …just as religion and race are not the same thing.

            All three of these characteristics, however, are protected by Colorado civil rights laws.

            Which bathroom should Michael Hughes and Aydian Dowling use?

          • Slidellman4life

            Sexual orientation

            Sexual behavior. Get it right.

            All three of these characteristics, however, are protected by Colorado civil rights laws.

            Not relevant.

          • Michael C

            The couple wasn’t engaging in any sort of “sexual behavior” in the bakery.

            The fact that race, religion, and sexual orientation are all protected characteristics is actually quite germane to the topic of this article.

            Which bathroom do you think Aydian Dowling and Michael Hughes should use?

          • Slidellman4life

            The couple wasn’t engaging in any sort of “sexual behavior” in the bakery.

            Who said they were? Where are you getting that insane crap from?

      • Max

        They love playing victim, the truth is of no concern to them at all. Instead of trying to accomplish something with their lives, it’s easy just to have your feelings hurt 24/7 and whine like babies.

        • Slidellman4life

          Yeah, and right below he is trying to lie his way out of it, by saying it was all about “religion” instead of the skin color/sexual behavior comparison. In truth, if it wasn’t, he never would have brought it up. Period.

          • Max

            They keep saying “born gay,” but I never seen a gay baby. Makes me think they are liars.

          • Guest

            Talk about off topic. Doesn’t matter if the customer’s sexual orientation changes on a daily basis – no matter what sex they are attracted to they can still buy a cake for the wedding.

          • Slidellman4life

            That’s because it is completely false. 100% of these so-called finding have been found to be flawed, self-serving, or both. On the other hand, plenty of evidence exists children become homosexuals through manipulation and/or abuse.

        • gogo0

          probably the most honest description of American fundie christians I’ve seen on this board

      • Guest

        They are completely comparable. You act like comparing civil rights is a bad thing.

        • Slidellman4life

          Sex is not a civil right. Sorry.

          • Guest

            Who said anything about sex? Sexual orientation is about the sex you are attracted to, has nothing to do with any particular act. There are celibate homosexuals just as there are heterosexuals, they are still their sexual orientation.

          • Slidellman4life

            Who said anything about sex?

            Stop acting like a moron. You know good and well that is what this is all about. There is no such thing as sexual orientation. All that is, is an excuse for deviant behavior, which not only includes homosexuality, but also pedophilia, bestality, necrophilia, etc.

            And anyone who says different is ignorant or a liar.

          • Guest

            Or they are just you. And so you are saying your spouse could just as easily be attracted to someone of the same sex as you?

            I can believe that.

          • Michael C

            The Supreme Court disagrees.

          • Slidellman4life

            No they don’t. If they did, you would be seeing homosexuals pushing for the right to have sex with kids….

            …oh…wait…

          • TheBottomline4This

            The “Supreme” Court is mostly full of fools who are bought or pressured to give into certain groups.

          • Tangent002

            How are they ‘bought’, exactly?

          • TheBottomline4This

            Under the table of course.
            Why not ask how they are pressured, oh wait, you know they are:)

          • Tangent002

            You assertion that justices are bribed is speculation only. As for ‘pressured’, sure, the Justices are lobbied by any number of interested parties, on both sides of any decision. What, do you actually believe the AFA, FRC, OMM, etc. do not exert pressure as well?

      • Ambulance Chaser

        It may be “predictable,” but that doesn’t absolve you of having to answer the question.

      • TheBottomline4This

        I like to refer to this minority as lgbtxyz 🙂

        • Found One

          1 Corinthians includes slanderers in it’s listing of abominations to god. They are called “revilers” in some texts of the unchanging word of god.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Truth can seem like slander to those who don’t like the Truth.

          • gogo0

            your “truth” is so good you ignore the bible? as bad as the bible is, it is supposed to be your source. you are just making stuff up now

  • TheBottomline4This

    It’s never really been about the cake, the pictures, or the whatever. It’s about forcing those who disagree to do something against their beliefs. Do you think it changes their hearts on the matter when they are forced? A rapist doesn’t change his victim’s heart toward him when he is forcing himself on a person against their will. One of the meanings of rape is…to seize or take or carry off by force. You only see gays doing this against a business that is ran by Christians. Gays are bullying (raping) these Christians to service their event or else. It will come back to bite each and every one of you 🙂 Romans 12:19
    You don’t see a gay “couple” going to a muslim bakery, photographer, etc and forcing them to service their event. Most gays know how gays are treated by islam. They are killed, thrown off buildings, etc. So fear keeps gays from forcing their agenda on muslims.
    Enjoy your temporary “victories”. They are as empty as you are 🙂
    “Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.” Romans 12:19

    • Michael C

      …how many Muslim bakers and photographers are in your town?

      • TheBottomline4This

        In the last 2 cities we’ve lived in there have been several. And in yous?

        • Michael C

          I would definitely have to go out of my way to find a Muslim baker who makes wedding cakes.

          • Guest

            And even when there are:

            She was also upset that Crowder called it a Muslim Bakery, saying there is no such thing.

            “We are a bakery, not a Muslim bakery,” said Mariam Khansa, an employee of Dearborn Sweets.

            Fellow employee Hussein Khansa said Dearborn Sweets has made a cake for a gay couple’s wedding before; and that the couple returned to have the bakery make them one for their anniversary.

            “We have never refused anyone,” Khansa said.

          • Max

            Maybe the Muslim will take you up to his roof, where you’ll have an exciting experience you’ll remember for the rest of your life.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Is Michael C gay?

          • Gary Schelvan

            Try it, Tell them your gay and see what transpires! Make sure you have your running shoes on. They put gays to death in the ME!

          • Michael C

            …or they would treat all customers equally. Just ask Faten Tofeili, Mariam Khansa, and Hussein Khansa of Dearborn Sweets in Dearborn, Michigan.

            A little while ago, some guy pretending to be a gay guy shopping for a wedding cake entered a handful of Muslim owned bakeries in Dearborn, Michigan (a place where it’s 100% legal to refuse service to gay people) yet nobody refused him service. “Hussein Khansa said Dearborn Sweets has made a cake for a gay couple’s wedding before; and that the couple returned to have the bakery make them one for their anniversary.”

            As Steven Crowder told Christopher Agee of Western Journalism, “no one said ‘No, we won’t do it.’”

            Did you catch that? Businesses owned by people who are Muslim are not discriminating against gay people. Even in places where it’s totally legal.

            If they’re located in an area that protects gay people from discrimination and they do refuse service to gay people, they will face the same penalties as anyone else.

            Do you have even one example of a business owned by a person who is Muslim refusing service to a gay person? Even one?

    • SFBruce

      About 70% of Americans identify as Christian, while less than 1% identify as Muslim. This is the obvious explanation for why the handful of bakers and florists who are having legal problems over their illegal denial of services to gay people are Christian. And yes, those of us who support LGBT equality are very much aware of the atrocities committed against gay people and other groups in repressive theocracies, but that doesn’t mean we’re going to ignore lesser forms of inequality in our own backyard.

      • TheBottomline4This

        I disagree with the 70% claim. True Biblical Christian percentages are lower.
        As for equality, marriage is only between a man and woman. If you disagree, that is fine and your choice, but your disagreement is with God. He trumps false thoughts and feelings on the issue.

        • SFBruce

          I’m sure most people of faith believe theirs is the one true way. That said, it strikes me as a bit arrogant to claim that only those who agree with you are “True Biblical Christians.” And I intend to trust my own conscience over one who claims to speak for God.

          • Slidellman4life

            Considering the Word of God calls homosexuality a sin and marriage between a man and a woman, I would say I side with that.

            I do not care what you think. I care what God thinks.

          • Guest

            And if you an only sell something to people with beliefs like yours making a public invitation to come buy your wares or services is the wrong way to go.

            Can only sell to people with certain beliefs find those people first and then make just them the invitation to buy.

          • SFBruce

            If you don’t care what I think, why do you keep responding to my comments?

            And when it comes to understanding what God thinks, don’t you think a little humility might be in order?

          • TheBottomline4This

            There is only one way. I don’t care if you see that as arrogant or not. I don’t need anyone to agree with me, but they must fully agree with the whole counsel of the Bible. If not, then their beef is with God. There are true Christians and there are those who claim to be, but aren’t…..
            “Not every one that saith unto Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:21-23
            I don’t speak for God silly, His Word does.

          • SFBruce

            But surely you recognize the fact that, even among conservative Christians who believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible, there is widespread disagreement about what that literal interpretation should be. More simply put, none of us have completely understanding. I don’t usually quote the Bible, but Paul said it this way, “Now we see things imperfectly, like puzzling reflections in a mirror, but then we will see everything with perfect clarity.”

          • Observer

            I suspect you use a bible that has dropped 7 books from it.

          • Gary Schelvan

            AMEN!! It is crystal clear as to what the Bible, GOD, says about homosexuality. He doesn’t hate the sinner, neither do I, but He does hate the sin, so do I. My prayer is for the all of the gay pop to step into the light of God’s Love and be healed.

          • Gary Schelvan

            Read the Bible, the Holy Word of God Almighty. Homosexuality is an abomination to God. He never has tolerated it and sorry to say, He NEVER will tolerate sin.

      • Gary Schelvan

        You know what you loser, go to a different bakery! You sexual deviants are never happy to get same sex marriage, you want to harass and destroy any and all people who don’t agree with you. You are the bigots and intolerant. Damn, so simple, go to another bakery, the man has his rights too.

        • SFBruce

          Of course this baker has rights, but those rights don’t include a pass on breaking laws that everyone else must obey. If you run a bakery, the law requires you to meet certain health standards; you also must abide by both state and federal laws when it comes to anti-discrimination law. In Colorado, it’s against the law to deny someone service based on their sexual orientation. This baker chose to break that law, and he’s paying the consequence of that act.

          • dntmkmecomoverther

            So you wrote to Bruce Springsteen and told him to play the concert in NC, right?

          • Dick Size

            Bruce Springsteen must hate sexual freaks, since he’ll be playing in Lisbon in a couple of weeks, and bakers there are free to tell sodomites and catamites what they can do with their “gay wedding cakes”.

          • Gary Schelvan

            So go tell that to Bruce, Sharon Stone, PayPal and Obummer. It’s so hypocritical of the “progressives” to stand up for their rights, but set out to destroy a simple little Christian baker. Go to a different bakery..problem solved. Life goes on for everyone. Why try to force a man to go against his deeply held religious beliefs by dragging him into court? Gays are seeking to impose acceptance of their lifestyle on those who disagree. Being gay is not a civil right such as rights based on skin color. It’s a man made right, since there is zero scientific evidence of a person being born gay.

    • Tangent002

      Muslims make up about 0.6% of the U.S. population.

      But to your point, Louder with Crowder did an ‘expose’ where he posed as a gay man trying to purchase a wedding cake from a couple of Muslim bakeries. He was refused, but fails to point out that the reason for the refusal was because he wanted a photo printed on the cake, which few bakeries are capable of.

      • Slidellman4life

        He was refused, but fails to point out that the reason for the refusal was because he wanted a photo printed on the cake, which few bakeries are capable of.

        Proof. With links.

        • Guest

          As soon as you prove that any business was ‘targeted’. Gossip is a sin.

          • Slidellman4life

            Every one of the businesses in question were run by Christians. I do not believe in coincidences.

          • Guest

            Only pseudoChristians refuse so far.

          • Slidellman4life

            Sorry, but you do not get to define Christianity for anyone. It is defined by the Bible, and the Bible alone. Don’t like it? Let me give you a tissue so you can cry it out.

          • Guest

            And the business can’t define it for anyone else, especially their invited customers.

          • Found One

            Are you permitted to give a tissue to a Gay person? Are you now condoning homosexuality?

          • Destiny2429

            God calls people to love the person, but hate the sin…which which includes telling them the truth of God’s Word.

          • TheBottomline4This

            So is homosexuality.

          • Guest

            No more than heterosexuality.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Heterosexuality is not a sin for God created it. Now can heterosexuals sin? Of course.

          • Guest

            And God created homosexuality too. And yes, both can be engaged in with and without sin. The marital bed for Christians is undefiled no matter the ‘male or female’ of the married couple.

          • Destiny2429

            Homosexuality is an abomination…God abhors it…and if you don’t repent and continue to harden your heart, you will be sorry.

          • Guest

            Ironic you speak of hardened hearts and think you speak for God.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Ironic you speak of unclean sex and think YOU speak for God. Gay sex as all sex not approved by God is unclean.

          • Guest

            And since homosexuality wasn’t called unclean you lose again. Male with male sex, possibly only one sex act, was unclean for those under the Old Covenant.

            No Christian is under the Old but the New. Married Christians have sex just fine regardless the sex off their spouse.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You are totally wrong dear. Your argument is with God and His Word that says the practice of homosexuality is an abomination.

          • Guest

            Find the word homosexuality in the Bible in Greek or Hebrew and we will continue.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Your ignorance is your bliss dear 🙂

          • Guest

            your inability to reply is duly noted and logged. 😺

          • TheBottomline4This

            Your ignorance is your bliss dear. 🙂

          • Guest

            No, men having ritual sex was unclean for those under the Old Covenant. And those without love or mercy will be the ones who are sorry.

          • gogo0

            homosexuals are part of “god’s plan”, he knew them before they were born et al -thus god created homosexuality and homosexuals.

          • Dick Size

            And the AIDS.

        • acontraryview

          https://www. youtube. com/watch?v=RgWIhYAtan4

      • acontraryview

        In addition, the bakeries he went to were not in a location where sexuality is a covered category. The bakeries were within their legal rights to turn down the order, just as bakeries in most locations in the US are free to do.

    • Destiny2429

      Well said

  • Found One

    In business, we must be courteous to all, regardless of what we think Jesus would do.

    • TheBottomline4This

      You used the word courteous. It means polite, respectful, or considerate in manner.
      Being polite, respectful of each human being and considerate by showing careful thought to another individual is what we should do to each other in general.
      Where in any of these gays bullying others to comply to their own beliefs have the others not been polite in saying basically, “we’re sorry we don’t do same sex cakes, pics, etc” There is nothing rude in that. It is stating a fact for their business. It’s not impolite or disrespectful or inconsiderate to say that. But, they twist it and get offended by the truth. They are the ones being impolite, disrespectful, inconsiderate toward the business owner. Gays are some of the most hateful, intolerant ones in this day and age. Not all of them are like that thankfully. They simply take their money elsewhere. That is the best way to handle it instead of forcing their own beliefs on others and suing and threatening their lives, etc. THAT is the picture of not being courteous.

      • Found One

        It is not discourteous to sue a sanctimonious or officious blowhard. It is the decent thing to do for all society.

        • TheBottomline4This

          The blowhards are the bullying gays.

          • Guest

            Yeah, expecting a business to obey the law is ‘bullying’.

            Try again.

          • TheBottomline4This

            The law??? Do you ALWAYS obey the speed limit?

          • Guest

            Actually I kinda do and lower my speed when I notice its too high (use the cruise control mostly).

            Obeying the law is part of the Christian obligation to society.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Riiight 🙂
            Yes we are to obey laws, but when they go against God and His Word, nope.

          • Guest

            And since God has said its ok to do business with those of this world and that its even ok to give idolatrous coins in payment to a country ruled by a pagan god, its not against God’s Law or Word to sell a couple a wedding cake no matter what they are going to use it for.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Wrong. God does not accept the practice of homosexualiy, just as he doens’t accept other sexual sins.

          • Guest

            There is no sin in a married couple having sex regardless their sexes.

          • TheBottomline4This

            The only married couples consist of a man and a woman, so for them that is true.

          • Guest

            No married Christians can be ‘male or female’ there is no difference in the body of Christ.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Oh dear.

          • Guest

            Again,you have a right to have different beliefs, this is America, but everyone has a right to have a different belief than you.

          • Found One

            Of course he does accept it. He created it!

          • TheBottomline4This

            He did not create homosexuality…satan did.
            Are you gay?

          • Sheri

            You have to ask?

          • gogo0

            can you cite in the bible the list of sins that god accepts and the list of sins that god doesn’t accept? you guys focus so much on SEX and so little on other sins, so the natural conclusion would be that there is a sin ranking in the bible that you guys are following so as to not be hypocrites.

          • Found One

            In Romans, god tells you through Paul, that you are to obey the law. He will sort the inequities.

          • TheBottomline4This

            Is there a time when we should intentionally disobey the laws of the land? The answer is found in Acts 5:27-29, “Having brought the apostles, they made them appear before the Sanhedrin to be questioned by the high priest. ‘We gave you strict orders not to teach in this Name,’ he said. ‘Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.’ Peter and the other apostles replied: ‘We must obey God rather than men!’“
            It is clear that as long as the law of the land does not contradict the law of God, Christians are bound to obey the law of the land. As soon as the law of the land contradicts God’s command, we are to disobey the law of the land and obey God’s law.

          • Found One

            Acts is a book (scroll) which is the second part to the Gospel of Luke, but we do not know who wrote either. It was not attributed to Luke until` the 2nd century. Romans is known to be by Paul, though grossly changed and overwritten, but being the best we have, let’s go by Paul, the self-ordained apostle of a Jesus in the Heavenly realm.

          • Found One

            I say “known” to be by Paul, as that is generally accepted for now, but there are a growing number of scholars who think Marcion could have written it around 140-150CE.

          • TheBottomline4This

            I don’t go by what you oh unfounded one say to go by. God trumps all your deceitful words.

          • Found One

            But Paul tells us that he is speaking at the direction of god himself!

          • Tangent002

            That’s fine, as long as you understand your religion does not give you magical immunity from the consequences of failing to obey the law of the land.

          • Found One

            In Roman’s 13:1, when god tells you to follow man’s law, then man’s law becomes god’s law. See how confusing and contradictory the bible is?

          • Tangent002

            I’m not gonna complain if I get pulled over for speeding.

  • Found One

    Christians must take responsibility for the misery they bring to the lives of others by interfering in law. This applies to all areas where they believe they have a right to interfere. When a woman in Texas botches a self abortion because the clinics are closed, that is on the heads of christians who fought Planned Parenthood. When a Gay commits suicide, because he can no longer take the bullying, that is on the christians who fought Gay rights. When an old person suffers miserably 24 hours a day, that is on christians who fight euthanasia laws.

    • http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/fisherhl Mr. Avatar

      B.S. Telling the truth according to their faith is their responsibility as Christians.

      • Found One

        Their truth is for them alone once the other has refused it. Others have their own faiths which serve them quite well.

  • Found One

    There are many religions in this country, of which christianity is but one. Others do not wish to be subjected to christian laws, just as christians do not want to be subjected to Hindu laws.

  • Found One

    I am sure Jesus would have made a bed for these men. Jesus advocated acceptance and love. But then Jesus was a good man.

    • StanW

      Clearly, you know NOTHING about the teachings of Jesus, or his actions.

      • Found One

        He did not refuse water to the woman at the well. He protected an adulteress from the blowhard crowd. He would have made a bed.

        • StanW

          Like I said, you know NOTHING about he teachings of Jesus!

          • Found One

            Jesus said to the woman to go and sin no more, which he proffered as a goal only, not a command. AS GOD IN FLESH, HE SURELY KNEW THAT ALL PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO SIN.

          • StanW

            He told then ALL to go and sin no more. And YES it was a command.
            Jesus ministered to people where they were, but He DID NOT condone or participate in their sin with them.

          • Guest

            What sin, getting married?

          • StanW

            All the sin and sinners Jesus encountered. Please try to keep up!

          • Guest

            What does this have to do with buying the publicly offered sale of a cake?

          • Found One

            Jesus was no better than us when he lived on earth. He was a sinful human also. He wanted to kill those who disagreed with him, and he made his own whip, with which to attack the priests in the temple. He was disobedient to his parents, causing them to backtrack a day’s journey to find him in the temple.

          • StanW

            That is lies and blasphemy. Better that you stop talking now.

          • Found One

            God adopted him either on the cross or at his baptism. “Today you are my son, in whom I am well pleased.”

          • StanW

            You are hopeless!

          • Found One

            I have great hope that christianity will find love and the spirit of Jesus once more.

          • StanW

            Not the false Jesus you are talking about!

          • gogo0

            not evidence of anything, but an amusing and fitting quote nonetheless:
            “If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be: a Christian.” -Mark Twain

          • StanW

            And why would I care about the thoughts of an avowed atheist in the matters of Christ.

          • gogo0

            given that you dont care about the thoughts of another christian (Found One) in the matters of christ, I expect you dont care about anyone’s thoughts but your own.

          • StanW

            Just because FoundOne CALLS himself a Christian does not make it so. He is far from anything even remotely Christian!

          • gogo0

            this site’s boards are filled with christians calling each other out as not “true” christians. its a fallacious argument because the rules are interpreted differently by millions of people over the course of christianity’s history.

          • StanW

            “By their fruits, you shall know them”
            FoundOne’s own words condemn him. Your time is wasted covering for him.

          • gogo0

            I’m not covering for him, I’m saying that you are not the first nor the last person to claim they know the “right” way. its a pointless thing to say because you can throw bible quotes at each other all day and you will both come to different conclusions about them.
            I will give FoundOne some credit though, at least his/her interpretation of christ emphasizes tolerance and love as a sinner’s path to salvation. seems like they would be a much more pleasant person, not carrying so much hate and judgment around with them all the time

          • StanW

            I never said I knew anything, except that his characterization of Christ is not Biblically based and is in fact a bald-faced LIE. If that is the Jesus you believe in, then you also believe a lie.

          • gogo0

            I don’t believe in any of it, that’s what makes people reading the same bible quotes and both coming to polar opposite “truths” so amusing

          • StanW

            Then why are you even in this discussion. You believe in NOTHING!

          • gogo0

            first they refuse to serve gays, next it could be they refuse to serve those of us who don’t believe in any gods. this issue is worth keeping tabs on

          • StanW

            So you are against religious freedom?

            Gotcha, you may go now!

          • gogo0

            that’s quite a leap. no, I am 100% in favor of and will defend you having the freedom to practice your religion -in a way that affects no one else. all you have to do is keep your christian sharia to yourself.

          • StanW

            Christian sharia?

            You are a biased jerk.

          • Philthy Phil

            Yeah Christian Sharia, looney toon. Bring out your lying phony “savior” so we Jews can kill him again. He deserved it.

          • Found One

            God could not command what it is impossible for us poor fallen creatures to do. You are wrong.

          • StanW

            As I stated before, you know NOTHING about Christ or Christianity!

        • Slidellman4life

          Dude, your ignorance is showing, along with your poor trolling skills. Read a Bible and shut your face.

      • Found One

        Jesus permitted sinners to cleanse his feet.

        • StanW

          And what did He say to them, to ALL sinners that he ministered to?

    • Found One

      Jesus permitted the sinner to anoint him.

  • Found One

    If the disagreement is with god, then it is up to god to deny us the cake. Not the baker.

  • Found One

    Too many christians think they are god. But then that is what fMRI shows us, is that god is all in our heads.

  • Max

    Amazing how many pathological liars pretend that this was all about obtaining a cake, when we all know these businesses are targeted by the most vindictive, hate-filled people on the planet. Offer to make them a cake and they’ll walk away and never come back. Has anyone done that yet? Someone should do that, and videotape the whole encounter, it will be a matter of 10 seconds or less that the “couple” heads for the door.

    Also: is it necessary that two people place an order for a cake? Couldn’t just ONE place the order? Unless it has the names on it, and unless it has the two figurines on top, there’s no reason on God’s green earth that one gay or one lesbian couldn’t order the cake without even mentioning that it’s for two men or two women. But they’re not going to do that for the obvious reason: they don’t want a cake, they want trouble.

    • Michael C

      In this case, the couple walked in and were turned away in a matter of seconds.

      In other cases, the people were actually return customers. They were definitely not “targeting” the business.

      In the case of Sweet Cakes in Oregon, a woman and her mother went in to order the cake. As they were discussing what type of cake she wanted, the business owner specifically asked about who she was marrying. Should she have lied? She didn’t want trouble. She just wanted to purchase a cake just like what the bakery sells to other customers.

      • Max

        Oh, is that right, “return customers”? So, how many wedding cakes had they purchased there before? I guess the brevity of their “marriages” but be in keeping with the brevity of the so-called “relationships.”

        Thanks for the chuckle – “return customers” for wedding cakes. That’s a hoot. Buying in volume is always a wise choice.

        • Tangent002

          The ‘return customers’ were for Arlene’s flowers. The couple had previously purchased flowers for each other so they had no clue the owner was opposed to same-sex relationships.

          • Max

            There is NO mention of Arlene’s Flowers in the article, zip. Take a look at the photo, that’s a cake, not flowers. The article deals with a bakery. See if you can focus.

          • Guest

            And no mention of targeting either. And obviously the customer has no obligation to hide the use of the cake which they are using consistent with their own beliefs.

          • Tangent002

            I was referring to Michael C’s comment about returning customers. You assumed he meant for the bakeries.

        • Guest

          They had ordered one for the customer’s mother a couple years earlier who went with her that day to get the one for her daughters wedding.

          Your serving of crow is right over there. 🎂

          • gogo0

            is that crow cake gay or a straight??

          • Guest

            I don’t know but it’s required a murder to make it.

      • Guest

        Oh FYI:

        While Arlene’s Flowers case is going to the Washington state Supreme Court for a hearing they aren’t putting it on any fast track – not on the spring docket so the earliest it could even be heard would be next fall.

    • Tangent002

      There is no evidence at all that Masterpiece was ‘targeted’, since there is nothing on the website or storefront that would indicate the shop was not open to serving everyone. As I understand it, the bakery was recommended by the couple’s event planner as being an excellent option.

      Also, I know of no couple where only one of them chooses the wedding cake. My ex-wife and I were there for all of the consultations regarding the design, flavor, and ingredients.

      • Slidellman4life

        There is no evidence at all that Masterpiece was ‘targeted’,

        Considering it has been exclusively Christian businesses having to deal with this, I call BS.

        • Tangent002

          Where is the indication that any of these businesses were ‘Christian’?

          • Slidellman4life

            You know better than to say something that stupid.

          • Tangent002

            I’ve seen the archived web sites for Masterpiece Cake Shop, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, and Arlene’s Flowers, and there is no indication at all they are ‘Christian businesses’.

          • TheKingOfRhye

            What I wonder is how a business can be said to be a “Christian business” if they are a public business that can’t refuse service to anyone because they’re of a different religion. A Christian-owned business, sure, but that’s not saying the same thing, I think.

          • Found One

            Your search box is your Oracle.

        • Guest

          No, only a handful of ‘Christian’ businesses are trying to illegally discrimination. Take the joke ‘Muslim bakery’ video – the maker had to publicly apologize and admit that 2 of the bakeries shown were refusing him because they didn’t make cakes at all and the last was because of a language barrier with the staff – that bakery not only makes wedding cakes for same sex couples but even had a customer who had ordered their first anniversary cake there.

          Only a particular type of ‘Christian’ is driven to not respect the customer’s civil rights.

          • Slidellman4life

            Take the joke ‘Muslim bakery’ video – the maker had to publicly apologize and admit that 2 of the bakeries shown were refusing him because they didn’t make cakes at all and the last was because of a language barrier with the staff – that bakery not only makes wedding cakes for same sex couples but even had a customer who had ordered their first anniversary cake there.

            Proof. With links.

            This post is otherwise not relevant.

          • Guest

            Well considering your assertion is that ‘Christian’ businesses were targeted and you have zero proof of that your request is humorous and hypocritical to say the least.

            We are a bakery, not a Muslim bakery,” said Mariam Khansa, an employee of Dearborn Sweets.
            Fellow employee Hussein Khansa said Dearborn Sweets has made a cake for a gay couple’s wedding before; and that the couple returned to have the bakery make them one for their anniversary.
            “We have never refused anyone,” Khansa said.

            A Golden Bakery employee said he told Crowder to go across the street to Hallab Bakery for the order, because Golden Bakery does not make wedding cakes.
            The employee, who did not want to be identified, said Crowder misrepresented him and others in the video.“I kept explaining why we don’t make wedding cakes here, but he didn’t show that part in the video,” the employee said. “I am only upset because what he did is not right. He is accusing us of something we never did.”

            Employees at Hallab Bakery told The Arab American News the employee from the bakery who was featured in the video does not know English, so he didn’t understand what Crowder was asking.

          • Slidellman4life

            Source. And you still have nothing saying Steven Crowder had to apologize for anything.

          • Guest

            Again, Google is your friend. And read the comment guidelines:

            9) The posting of photographs, videos and links to external sites is prohibited.

          • Slidellman4life

            Nope. Debate 101: You make the allegation, you back it up.

            And I could not care less about the “links to external sites” crap. You can still provide the link by substituting words for symbols, or citing the source APA style.

          • Guest

            I did, you want even more go research it yourself. And it does seem ironic that on a Christian blog that you suggest I use deceitful means to do something illegal.

            Since you advocate lies and deceit why are you commenting on a Christian blog at all?

          • Slidellman4life

            I did, you want even more go research it yourself.

            Then I have no reason to believe it came from anything other than your imagination.

            Since you advocate lies and deceit why are you commenting on a Christian blog at all?

            The irony is so hilarious and uinintentional I am going to just leave that here.

          • Guest

            And so your recourse is to say I made it up and no answer at all?

            Bye bye

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Anyway you got your source. So, are you prepared to admit that Crowder was deceitful, and that Muslim businesses do, in fact, bake cakes for gay couples?

          • Jolanda Tiellemans

            No of course he wouldn’t, then he has to admit that he is wrong. He of course would say he isn’t wrong. People like him are sooooo predictable.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            He shouldn’t be asking questions if he’s not prepared to hear the answer 🙂

          • Tangent002

            h t t p : / / w w w .deadlinedetroit.com/articles/12048/dearborn_bakeries_claim_viral_youtube_video_falsely_shows_them_as_anti-gay#.Vx-Zc3oWhVg

            Remove the spaces

    • Found One

      I don’t agree, but I would point out that all is fair in love and war, and it was the christians who declared the war.

  • John Tuffield

    The judges are wrong, making a cake for gay people is totally an advocate for gays, violation of religious freedom.

    • Guest

      The business wouldn’t be offering wedding cakes to the general public if they couldn’t sell them as the law requires – if they were a Christian business anyway.

    • Tangent002

      So if you sell a gay person a sandwich, are you advocating for homosexuality?

      • TheBottomline4This

        Servicing a gay individual is not a problem.

        • Tangent002

          How about a gay couple who wanted to share a sandwich?

          • TheBottomline4This

            How many do that???

    • Found One

      Then he is rude not to send a gift as well.

  • Found One

    Jesus knew we were all sinners and called us closer to himself.

  • Found One

    Bigotry is expensive. Just mark it down as martyrdom.

  • Found One

    Well, this is settled. Next issue please.

  • Emmanuel

    Just like the bathrooms; make straight cakes, gay cakes and whatever cakes. Put them on display and let everyone pick. The surprise will be in the filling.

  • Found One

    God and Jesus had no problem with homosexuality per se; it was the sexual activity offered at the pagan temples that the bible was cursing. It drew people away from their own faith.

  • Found One

    Christians have some trouble understanding their bible, when they do not know the setting in which it was written. Location and other activities in the region, as well as Jewish history must be considered, in order to provide context for knowing the bible properly.

  • Found One

    Christianity has morphed into a bitter, punitive and pushy political party. I had thought it was just the T-Party until I saw the change in the local church as well. It is no longer about Jesus or god, it is about “Self” alone.

  • Found One

    God tells you in no uncertain terms that you are to obey the law. Romans 13:1 This is not open to your interpretation. You either obey god, or you burn.

  • GibbyD

    The key word is forced “participation” . It is one thing to serve a hamburger to someone , it is another to force the seller to sit down at the table and eat with them. The cake maker artist should not be forced to create something that is against his Christian views, just as it would be wrong to force Jewish person to cater a KKK rally. The Baker is not discriminating against the Homosexuals , he is refusing to participate in the celebration of an event he disagrees with. They are NOT the same thing.

    • Tangent002

      No-one was asking the baker to attend the ceremony.

      • GibbyD

        High end bakers that make wedding cakes , not only design a cake but also deliver , set up and even serve.

        • Guest

          Obviously the baker of a bakery need not do any of those things once the cake is made.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker designs a cake first. He should have complete created control.

          • Guest

            Again, it is the bakery with the obligation, not any particular baker. The business can get someone to make the cake.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker tried . He tried to refer them to another bakery to make them a cake . They refused and were intent on that particular baker who they knew was a Christian, to be forced to design the cake. There were many bakeries they could have gone to for that cake. They and now the lower courts are maliciously trying to force Christians to violate their faith and conscience.

          • Guest

            It’s that bakery with the obligation. The baker should have referred them to another baker at that business.

            and there were many other restaurants that would let blacks sit at the lunch counter, let them go there.

            same lame excuse, both illegal violations of the customer’s civil rights.

    • Found One

      Cake making is in no way participation in a wedding, any more than a baker can claim to be involved with a birthday party, or a drunken orgy. If he is, he should send a gift!

      • Tangent002

        True. A vendor has no say at all in how their product is used. I could buy the fanciest wedding cake ever made and feed it to a flock of geese.

      • GibbyD

        There are some bakeries that sell cakes. There are others that with extraordinary creative skills, design specific cakes for occasions such as weddings where the cake creating is only part of the deal. They also transport , set up and even serve the cake.

        • Guest

          And if the business offers that service to the public it can’t refuse a client because of their beliefs, sexes, or sexual orientation.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker offers a man and a woman the option to buy a designed wedding cake for their wedding. He advertises and offers for sale, cakes for weddings of those that want to be married. Marriage is only between a man and a woman.

          • Guest

            they don’t get to decide for the customer the validity of their marriage or wedding. When the business offered the sale of wedding cakes to the public they are for people of all beliefs to buy.

          • GibbyD

            They offered sales of cakes to couples that were of different sexes. They could have gone to other bakeries .

          • Guest

            The bakery could have legally sold the customer the cake they freely offered to the public to come buy.

            they can’t discriminate against the customer because of their sexes.

    • Ambulance Chaser

      Klansmen are not a protected class.

      • Found One

        Sure they are. Freedom of Speech and meeting

        • Tangent002

          As it applies to a retail store: A store could certainly refuse to service a Klan rally that is organized by a Klan chapter. That same store, let’s call it a printer, could refuse to print racist materials for the Klan chapter. That same store, however, could not refuse to print up wedding invites for a member of that Klan chapter.

        • Guest

          yes but not in a protected class. the KKK is considered to be an ideology and not protected as a civil right.

          You can refuse a customer because they are in the KKK just like you could because they smell, or any other reason not considered a civil right.

          • Found One

            You must serve all who are not in violation of health department rules, such as shirt and shoes. Your personal offense at smell means nothing.

          • Guest

            Don’t know where you live but not here in Washington USA. A customer can be refused for any reason other than a protected civil right class membership.

          • Found One

            That is not true anywhere in the US.

          • Guest

            Sorry, you are mistaken. People are turned away from businesses often and if there is no civil rights violation its completely legal.

            Do you have a case I can look up where someone was refused serviced NOT for a civl rights class and won a judgement against the business? My quick scan of the legal databases can’t find a single one.

        • Ambulance Chaser

          Having constitutional rights is not the same thing as being a member of a protected class.

          Protected classes are people who can’t legally be discriminated against by public accommodations (in this case). Sex, religion, race, national origin, etc.

      • GibbyD

        Neither is the act of sodomy a protected class. The Baker was not discriminating against the homosexuals , he was rejecting any participation in the celebration of a ceremony that exalted the abominable practice and sin of homosexulaity.

        • Guest

          There is no act that the couple could possibly engage in that a dozen or more times other couples the business would sell to don’t also engage in.

          Either the sell fancy tiered cakes to the public or they don’t – pick one.

          • GibbyD

            No American should be forced to condone, endorse or made to create anything for something that disgraces the Holy rite of marriage.

          • Guest

            and no one is forcing the business to sell anything. if they can’t sell something to the public regardless of the customer’s beliefs then they don’t have to offer it to the public at all.

            Which is exactly what this business and others are now doing.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker was not selling pizza, shoes or homosexual wedding cakes. They were NOT on the menu that was offered to the public.

          • Guest

            then the customer will buy a heterosexual wedding cake. (hint: you do realize they are identical, right?)

          • GibbyD

            and i go back to the degree of participation. The Baker should not be forced to design a cake that is against his beliefs. Simple example would be anything about the cake that spoke about same gender marriage. Writing , pictures , two figures of men on the top of the cake, ect. Also, he should not be forced to transport , set up and or serve at the event , which is what many better bakeries offer to do. The wedding photographer would be another example or refusing to participate.

          • Guest

            and you are again talking about individual employees of the business and not the business. No particular baker need make the cake, no particular photographer need take the pictures.

            ⭐️not all cakes were made by mellissa,
            ⭐️not all floral arrangements were made by Stutzman,
            ⭐️not all photos were taken by Elane.

            again let another baker at the bakery make the cake.

          • GibbyD

            sole proprietor business’s don’t have that option. If they did have more workers, it is the owner that should still make the call of refusing to participate and or associate with evil since it is that owner’s name and reputation on that business.

            Let another Bakery do it .

          • Guest

            Oh so this isn’t about what he might do personally, it’s about systematic discrimination forced on all other employees too?

            The deceit that this was about the poor baker being ‘forced’ now stands revealed.

          • Tangent002

            What makes a wedding cake either homosexual or heterosexual?

          • GibbyD

            the function for where it is served at.

          • Tangent002

            The function of any cake is to look nice and taste good.

          • Bob Johnson

            So should the baker be allowed to refuse to make a wedding cake for Buddhists? Buddhists do not believe in God or any god.

          • GibbyD

            A wedding cake is for one man and one woman that plan to join in what God instituted as a sacred union.

            People of the same sex are no more married than two sockets or two plugs. There is just NO connection and definitely no power to create life. It just does not work. You may have a legal agreement but you don’t have a marriage.

            A wedding cake is for a genuine wedding and marriage of a couple ( male and female), regardless of what else they may believe.

          • Bob Johnson

            So it is a sacred union even if the couple are heathens, just as long as they are of different sexes?

            And what about a Christian couple who are past reproductive age?

        • Ambulance Chaser

          They weren’t discriminated against because they had gay sex in the shop, they were discriminated against for BEING gay, which is a protected class I’m Colorado.

          • GibbyD

            Nope. The baker had sold items to homosexuals in the past. It was only when they asked to be designed one for the event of a ceremony that celebrated the perversion of what God has instituted, HOLY Marriage. They wanted the Baker to make a cake that endorsed the state and act of Homosexuality.

          • Jalapeno

            It doesn’t need to be a total discrimination. Refusing to provide a service for someone because of their sexual orientation is enough to call it discrimination.

          • GibbyD

            Discrimination is not a bad thing. You do it all the time. You use discrimination whenever you discern right from wrong, sour or fresh milk, etc. . Besides , in this case the Baker was not discriminating . He was willing to sell a wedding cake to any homosexual as long as their wedding was with someone of the opposite sex.

          • Jalapeno

            Legal is an actual legal concept too, you know. It’s pretty specific.

            The reason why he was refusing to sell it was because of the sexual orientation of the people involved. It doesn’t matter that he says “it’s only because they’re getting MARRIED”..it’s still a refusal to sell based on who they are.

            If someone tried to say “I’ll sell to a Christian, but I won’t sell to a Christian WEDDING”, would that be legal?

          • GibbyD

            I believe the courts will decide this and similar on the degree of participation. That has not been brought up much yet but I think that is where the lines will be drawn. In the Baker’s case, he sold items to Homosexuals. He did not want to endorse or condone by deigning a cake something that is a perversion of that for which he and many believe to be otherwise a very sacred and holy thing. It is not HOLY for two of the same sex to be ” married” which infers that carnal knowledge of the participants is happening.

            Homosexuality is not a religion or race. Homosexuality is based on what you do. How you have sex is an activity it is not your religion or race.

          • Jalapeno

            You are aware that in many places…your sexual orientation is a protected class just like your religion, gender and race?

            “I believe the courts will decide this and similar on the degree of participation

            They’ve decided that selling a cake is effectively the same whether or not its going to a girl/girl couple or a girl/guy couple.

          • GibbyD

            selling a cake is not the same as specially creating one for something specific . The Baker did no want to use his creative ability to design something that endorses sin.

          • Jalapeno

            If you’re a true custom cake creator that makes them from scratch with new designs every time..maybe.

            If you’re just making the same type of cake though? Not gonna cut it.

          • GibbyD

            Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake Shop is such a custom cake creator that makes them from scratch and designed specifically for each customer

          • Jalapeno

            And you’re fully aware that he also has an actual gallery of cakes that you can choose from, that he can refuse to make any specific design, and that he wasn’t actually asked to design a special cake?

          • Tangent002

            There was no request for a special design. The refusal was made based on the identity of the customers.

            BTW, how can a cake ‘endorse sin’?

          • GibbyD

            The cake comes with the name of the business or Baker, not on but with the cake. Other people may think that the baker endorses that sin

          • Tangent002

            Do you really think wedding cakes are served in the box they came in?

          • GibbyD

            The word gets out where it came from and or who made it .

          • Guest

            you must be young. people aren’t racist because the people clash with the drapes but about what they say they are and do – ‘inferior’, ‘criminal’, ‘dirty’, ‘diseased’, etc. Same with those against other religions.

            Again can’t sell something to the public as the law requires don’t offer it to the public, simple solution and the one this business uses.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I see. So why you didn’t you file an amicus brief, since you’re so well versed in Discrimination Law?

            I can’t wait to read whatever case law you found that upholds the argunent that there’s some legally-significant difference between refusing to sell to a gay couple for a wedding and refusing to sell a cake to gay people for some other purpose.

          • GibbyD

            it will be decided eventually on the degree of participation.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I’m pretty sure it’s already been decided. Repeatedly. Refusing to sell for a same sex wedding is sexual orientation discrimination. And it is illegal, and actionable.

          • GibbyD

            lower court rulings in a few states only. What if you ” sexual orientation is pedophia , Apotemnophilia, Ursusagalmatophilia, Emetophilia,Coprophilia, Mysophilia, Beastiality or Necrophilia ? It is not illegal to stand for your 1st amendment rights including the free exercise clause of the Constitution.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            That’s the point of a ruling. It has been held that public accommodation non-discrimination laws DON’T violate anyone’s constitutional rights.

            And “lower court rulings in a few states” are still rulings. Although if you really need one, the Supreme Court ruled on this issue also, in Heart of Atlanta v. United States.

          • GibbyD

            It is not illegal to stand for your 1st amendment rights including the free exercise clause of the Constitution.

            After reading that case you referenced, I am more convinced that not much of it concerning the decision, could be applied in the Baker’s case. . I am not a lawyer nor am i a student a case law. I am familiar with the classic landmark cases that most Americans know.

            The computer encyclopedia says that Atlanta v. United States was decided based on the recent civil rights of Act of 1964. a landmark case. The key to understanding that case, as I see it , is different from the Baker case. The key words are “race” and “interstate commerce”. As to federal and congressional action and or control of The Baker’s business , the Homosexuals are not a race. The place where the item is sold has nothing to do with interstate commerce. The Hotel by it’s nature of business, would effect interstate commerce. The Baker and other businesses that were sued , do not. The state of Colorado’s jurisdiction over the Baker would be unreasonable because it violates the Baker’s civil and religious rights. The Hotel did not cite religious reasons for denying Black people. They had nothing to show where they would be put out unreasonably or would lose property or business because of accomodation. The Baker would be robbed of the practice of his faith that tells him not to have anything to do with the unfruitful deeds of darkness.

            “The U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress acted well within its jurisdiction of the Commerce Clause in passing the Civil Rights Act of 1964, thereby upholding the act’s Title II in question.”
            — The key thought again is, ” interstate commerce”. The Baker business is almost totally local without much interstate sales.

            The other point again is that that case had to do with race and not homosexuality. Race is what you are and homosexual is based on what you do or what kind of sex you desire. They are not the same nor should they be treated the same under the law.

            As I said before and that you did not answer. What if your ” sexual orientation is pedophia , Apotemnophilia, Ursusagalmatophilia, Emetophilia,Coprophilia, Mysophilia, Beastiality or Necrophilia. Should these be afforded the same kind of accommodation and legal protection if sexual orientation is something you think has weight in court and to be held more in favor than a Bible believing Christian?

          • Ambulance Chaser

            I don’t have time to get into it right now with you, but I will later. I must say, it’s refreshing to meet someone on this site who is actually concerned with debating an issue intelligently, so I’ll give you credit for that. You’re the first person I’ve met on CNN who didn’t try to weasel out of discussing a subject.

          • Ambulance Chaser

            Okay, the case challenged the Civil Rights Act on 3 grounds:

            1. Congress had no right to enact it because the CRA exceeds it powers under the Commerce Clause. The Court disagreed saying that Congress had the right to pass laws regarding businesses that dealt in interstate commerce.

            2. Forcing a business to accept racially diverse clientele would cost it business, and thus was taking away a business owner’s right to property without due process under the 5th Amendment. The Court said this is nonsense as prohibiting turning away customers won’t do anything except make you MORE money.

            3. The CRA created involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment. The Court said no, making a person already in business accept all customers regardless of race was nothing like slavery.

            #1 doesn’t apply to the Colorado law because the Commerce Clause only restricts Congress. Now, how do 2 and 3 not apply? Or do you have some other grounds to challenge the Colorado Civil Rights law?

          • Tangent002

            In the case of Masterpiece, then it’s a done deal. The actual wedding ceremony was to be performed in Massachusetts. The event in Colorado was a reception for family and friends. There could be no ‘participation’ in a same-sex wedding at all.

          • GibbyD

            buy a cake but don’t demand that the Baker especially design or create one or participate at the event by delivering , setting up and ot serving .

          • Tangent002

            There was no discussion of custom design, delivery, or set-up at all.

    • Guest

      The obligation is the bakery’s not any particular baker at the bakery. If the bakery owner couldn’t sell something to people of all beliefs they wouldn’t be offering it to the general public.

      • GibbyD

        They offered traditional wedding cakes . Wedding are only between a man and a woman. They could not create something that does not exist in God’s eyes. Homosexulaity is not a belief , it is a perverted sinful act.

        • Guest

          And so the customer will just buy a ‘traditional wedding cake’ then for their wedding no matter the sexes of the wedding couple.

          fancy it up anyway you want there is no right to religious discrimination in a public offer. either the business sells tiered cakes to the public of all beliefs or they don’t offer them to the public at all – pick one.

          • GibbyD

            A “traditional” wedding cake is for a traditional wedding. A traditional wedding, which is by tradition, Bible, biology , thousands of years of human history, and common sense , is that which is ONLY for one man and one woman.

            Yes , there is reason for discrimination. A KFC franchise sells chicken. They advertize that they sell chicken. You don’t go there expecting that you can buy spaghetti. IT IS NOT ON THE MENU. Neither did the Baker have on his list of items for sale , a cake designed for an ungodly wicked and perverted ceremony that celebrated , not love, but homosexulaily .

          • Jalapeno

            If the cake is the same, and the process is the same, then they need to be able to buy the cake. The only difference is the gender of the people using it.

            Sure, if they had to paint rainbows and pro-gay slogans on it you might have a point.

          • GibbyD

            marriage , Biblically, is when two become one flesh by the marriage act. That is biologically impossible for two of the same sex.
            The Baker would have been willing to sell a wedding cake to a homosexual if that person was having a wedding with someone of the opposite sex.

          • Jalapeno

            Marriage isn’t only a religious concept, and it’s not based around sex.

            I’m always amazed at how much people talk about “ruining marriage” and then pretend like it’s just a sex thing.

          • GibbyD

            Yes, marriages is based on sex. You do not have to have sex and marry though everyone you think or say you “love”. You may as well marry your sister or mom or dad then. If homosexuality is not wrong because you say you love someone and that is why it is ok then really anything goes. The fact is it is really not about love at all.

          • Jalapeno

            Marriage is not about sex. Most people now don’t even wait until marriage to have sex. If that’s all it was about, why would they get married?

          • GibbyD

            marriage, is the act of when two become one flesh.

          • Jalapeno

            And..when people have had sex before marriage?

            What if they get married and never have sex?

          • GibbyD

            “And..when people have had sex before marriage?”—-According to God’s Word The Bible, they are, ” one flesh ” and thus married.

            What if they get married and never have sex?————
            If you have never consummated the relationship with that person, something only those of different sexes can do, then you are NOT married even though you can call each other husband and or wife.

          • Jalapeno

            So..when people have sex, they’re married now? If someone has 5 one night stands, does that mean they have 5 wives?

            “then you are NOT married”

            So..what’s that silly little certificate that they signed? Why do they get to put down ‘married’ on the tax documents?

            Or..here’s a better question for you.

            Why do you think that your religious definition is the only one that matters?

          • GibbyD

            “If someone has 5 one night stands, does that mean they have 5 wives?” — He is one flesh ( married) with those five but none are his ” wife”. he also needs to repent and trust Christ before he dies and ends up forever suffering in a literal place called hell .

            Marriage is what God says it is. God’s Word is clear about and God’s Word is final .

          • Jalapeno

            A wife is the term for someone that you have married.

            So..what’s that silly little “marriage license” for and why do all these people who don’t follow your religious beliefs get them?

            Why do you think that your religion gets to claim the word?

          • GibbyD

            God instituted the first marriage in the Garden of Eden and God incarnate, The LORD Jesus Christ , verified it in the New Testament.

            “Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 5And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 6Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” ( Matthew 19:4,5,6)KJB.
            — Notice too that The LORD Jesus calls the woman , the man’s wife, even before they were one flesh ( married).
            –This is also true of Mary and Joseph. They were considered husband and wife before they one flesh ( married).
            –Even in today’s modern wedding ceremonies , the Preacher will say after the vows are take , ” I now pronounce you man and wife”. They did not become one flesh ( married) yet , and not until their relationship is and or was consummated.

          • Jalapeno

            Yes, some preachers will say that. Some don’t.

          • GibbyD

            It does not matter what some preachers say or don’t say as much as what does God’s Word , the Bible “say” and reveal.

          • Jalapeno

            It matters that you try to use what some people do as evidence, and it matters that your religious beliefs are not the only ones that matter.

          • GibbyD

            My interpretation and understanding might be wrong concerning God;s Word , The Bible. I don’t think it is as best i know but I would not want you or anyone to place trust in my words or any man’s words. I would rather they read for themselves and study The Bible which claims to be God’s Words and with much evidence for such claims. I would wish they would learn of God’s love and purpose for all that there is. I would wish and pray that they would place their faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ and what He did at Calvary to save them and granting the possibility of everlasting and abundant life and love. ( 2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Timothy 2:15; Acts 20:21; 1 John 5:13)KJB

          • Jalapeno

            Good.

            So everyone can make up their own minds about what marriage is.

            Glad we agree.

          • GibbyD

            What man thinks it is , is irrelevant if it does not conform to the Truth. The decisions you make though have consequences. What God’s Word reveals as to what marriage is, is what counts and when you resist and disagree with The Word of God, you are disagreeing with absolute Truth .

          • Jalapeno

            No..the second you start to try to decide who and who cannot have legal protections or who can call themselves married and get the societal recognition, you stop being able to claim that your truth is the one that counts.

            If you just keep your own opinions to yourself and don’t try to push other people into conforming, then you can continue muttering to yourself that all these other people aren’t REALLY married and these people are in a REAL marriage, the way it REALLY IS and that’s just the TRUTH and make yourself feel better about things.

            Take your pick.

          • GibbyD

            People of the same sex are no more married than two sockets or two plugs. There is just NO connection and definitely no power to create life. It just does not work. You may have a legal agreement but you don’t have a marriage.

          • Jalapeno

            Sure.. By your standards.

            I thought you already acknowledged that your standards dont apply to people that aren’t you?

          • GibbyD

            By every standard. Biological, historical, scientific,common sense, Biblical, cultural, etc.

          • Jalapeno

            Not in my eyes, not in the eyes of lots of people.

            Your standard is applicable to you, and you only.

          • GibbyD

            Nope, it is for everybody because it is obvious to anybody with common sense and a willingness to simply acknowledge the truth that marriage was set up for the purpose of creating a family with a male ( husband/father), and female( wife/mother)
            .

          • Jalapeno

            ..Sure, that was the original intent.

            That doesn’t mean that marriage is about sex and it doesn’t mean that the idea hasn’t expanded past the whole concept of kids.

            Many people have kids without marriage.

            Many people have marriages without kids.

            So..as usual, your ideas about what it means apply to YOU, not to everyone else. You have no authority over the term.

          • GibbyD

            But there is no marriage without a male and female.

            You can call a dill pickle a banana but no matter how much you use your imagination or say it ain’t so, it is still gonna taste sour. You cannot convince anyone or even yourself otherwise.

          • Jalapeno

            I disagree.

            The dictionary disagrees, and society as a whole disagrees.

            As always, your opinion is not binding to anyone else.

          • GibbyD

            The dictionary agrees with me and so does more than 99% of all humanity and human civilization since Creation .

            The opinion that matters is held by The One Who you will stand before some day to give an account. On that day you will not be able to do anything but bow. You would be wise and saved if you, in this life, would , ” repent toward God and place your faith and trust toward The LORD Jesus Christ” ( Acts 20:21; 1st John 5:13; Philippians 1:6; John 3:3; 1st Peter 1:23)KJB. .

          • Jalapeno

            You really need to read the WHOLE definition.

            Have you ever looked into how many old cultures have had same-sex partnerships? Maybe the societal acceptance of same sex marriages?

          • Tangent002

            Well, not literally, of course.

          • GibbyD

            Yes , literally, through carnal knowledge and sexual intercourse. And if there was before that a wedding and marriage vows exchanged and verbal contract commitments made in front of witnesses , there is the intent including being granted a marriage licence to marry , a declaration of marriage and the marriage relationship can begin. You are not married until you are one flesh through sex. You are known as husband and wife though by those many declarations before marriage ( becoming one flesh). The preacher or justice of the peace does not say , I now pronounce you married , because he can’t. He can pronounce you man and wife and you will be literally married ( one flesh) when you have sex.

          • Guest

            And every customer has a right to not share that belief about marriage and still buy a wedding cake.

          • Guest

            And since every person in the USA has a right to not share that view of marriage and still accept any public offer of sale it makes no difference, the customer can still buy a cake from the bakery.

          • GibbyD

            a person can buy a cake but a Baker cannot, nor should not, be forced to design and or create a wedding cake for ( thus endorsing against his will) , a homosexual event that perverts what most believe should only be between a man and a woman.

          • Guest

            Again no one is forcing a baker to do anything, it is the bakery with the obligation not any particular employee.

          • Guest

            The customer is buying what the business is selling. The business can no more say the only sell cakes for ‘traditional marriage’ anymore than they could say they only sell them for ‘Baptist marriage’ or ‘white marriage’.

          • GibbyD

            Homosexuality is not a religion or a race.

          • Guest

            no it’s a sexual orientation and just as much a civil right as race or religion.

          • GibbyD

            That perversion is not a civil right , not in the constitution and not in the state of the Baker at the time of his refusal .

          • Guest

            Actually the civil right of sexual orientation was recognized at the time and you seem to be confusing a civil contract with a party for a wedding.

          • GibbyD

            “Phillips said that he told the men that he would be happy to make them any other type of baked goods outside of having to facilitate the ceremony, which he believed was a form of personal participation. ”

            “As Colorado has a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman,”

            You can expect to be served a hamburger if that is what is offered for sale. You cannot though demand that the seller or server of that hamburger sit down with you and eat it with you.

          • Guest

            and since Phillips wasn’t required to make the cake at all, any other business employee could, your case falls apart as did his.

          • GibbyD

            The business owner decides what is on the menu of things for sale

          • Guest

            Absolutely, and the business either offers wedding services to customers regardless of their beliefs, sexes, or sexual orientations or it shouldn’t be offering them to the public at all.

          • GibbyD

            The business offers wedding cakes to individuals that are planning to marry. Marriage is not marriage unless it is between a man and a woman.

          • Guest

            And here we are back to the beginning. Sorry, the business can’t define what is and isn’t a marriage for the customer, they have a constitutional right to their own beliefs on the subject.

            If the business can’t sell to people of all beliefs they shouldn’t be offering the service to the public int he first place which is the decision the owner of Masterpiece Cakes as reached so they don’t offer them anymore.

          • GibbyD

            The Baker has a constitutional right to refuse to associate and participate in a perversion and sin.

          • Guest

            Then don’t invite a group that includes such people to come do business which an invitation to the public does.

  • Found One

    I suppose if you gave a cake for a Gay wedding, that could be construed as participation. But selling a cake is not participation, otherwise Formal Wear Rentals would have to have you sign a form that you will not attend a Gay event in their clothing.

  • Found One

    Do limousine services require one to forswear that he/she will not be going to, or traveling from a Gay event? They would have to in order to prevent this inadvertent participation in sin. Oh, what a complicated web christians weave, when first they professionally deceive.

    • TheBottomline4This

      Oh, what a complicated web homosexuals weave, when first they go against the way God means sex to be…between a man and woman only..

      • Found One

        Did he explain it to you? Or are you a Cloud reader?

        • TheBottomline4This

          In the Bible.
          Your ignorance is your bliss.

          • Found One

            I am blissful enough to know that the men of the bible were angry about the sexual rituals of the fertility cults, but only because they drew off their own worshippers.

          • TheBottomline4This

            You are laughable. You know nothing.

  • TallZeke

    The criminalization of attitudes. Very sick, very fascist.

  • Dolph

    Bye freedom, one little slice at a time.

  • Unionville

    1984 has arrived. Orwell was a prophet. And Goldwater an accurate prognosticator.

    …….in the area of so-called “public accommodations” and in the area of employment–to be precise, Titles II and VII of the (Civil Rights) bill. I find no constitutional basis for the exercise of Federal regulatory authority in either of these areas; and I believe the attempted usurpation of such power to be a grave threat to the very essence of our basic system of government, namely, that of a constitutional government…..

    If it is the wish of the American people that the Federal Government should be granted the power to regulate in this two areas and in the manner contemplated by the bill, then I say the Constitution should be so amended as to authorize such action in accordance with the procedures for amending the Constitution…

    …. to ignore the Constitution and the fundamental concepts of our governmental system is to act in a manner which could ultimately destroy the freedom of all American citizens, including the freedoms of the very persons whose feelings and whose liberties are the major subject of this legislation….

    It also bids fair to result in the development of an “informer” psychology in great areas of our national life–neighbors spying on neighbors, workers spying on workers, businessmen spying on businessen, where those who would harass their fellow citizens for selfish and narrow purposes will have ample inducement to do so. These, the Federal police force and an “informer” psychology, are the hallmarks of the police state and landmarks in the destruction of a free society.

    I am unalterably opposed to discrimination of any sort and I believe that though the problem is fundamentally one of the heart, some law can help–but not law that embodies features like these, provisions which fly in the face of the Constitution and which require for their effective execution the creatio

    • Guest

      hmmm this is due to state civil rights regulations, not federal which are completely constitutional, both state and federal.

      And the Colorado constitution explicitly says liberty of religious conscious does not excuse acting without regard for the rights of others, in this case the customer’s civil rights.

      Let’s be clear – this is about the efforts by some to allow businesses to religiously discriminate against the general public – nothing constitutional or even American about that.

    • Michael C

      Um, Did you really just copy and paste Barry Goldwater’s tirade against the Civil Rights Act of 1964? You do realize that what you just posted is actually an argument in favor of denying basic civil rights to black people, right?

  • Ripsawww

    “We all have a right to our personal beliefs, but we do not have a right to impose those beliefs on others and discriminate against them,” ACLU attorney Ria Tabacco Mar said in a statement on Monday.

    This is exactly what you are forcing the baker to do!! The gay couple is forcing their beliefs on the baker, and discriminating against him when he does not comply (agree) with their request. Why can’t they just find another baker who has no trouble with providing them with service? No, really…..why? There must be dozens who would have no trouble with the request.

    Finally, and most importantly…….how can the State find against the baker, when…at least at that time….. the State was forcing the couple to travel elsewhere to “marry”?

    • Guest

      Read the ruling, the bakery is not being forced to offer wedding cakes to the public, point of fact this one isn’t anymore.

      But if they do invite the public to buy them they must sell them legally and can no more refuse to sell them one for a wedding because of the couple’s sexual orientation than the can because of their race, ethnicity or beliefs.

      and no one needs a state license to have a wedding.

  • dntmkmecomoverther

    “This just in: Bruce Springsteen could not be reached for comment”

  • Gary Schelvan

    I can’t believe some of the things I’m reading from SFBruce and upside down guest. So here you go:

    Question: “What does the Bible say about homosexuality? Is homosexuality a sin?”

    Answer:
    The Bible consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin
    (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26-27; 1 Corinthians
    6:9). Romans 1:26-27 teaches specifically that homosexuality is a result
    of denying and disobeying God. When people continue in sin and
    unbelief, God “gives them over” to even more wicked and depraved sin in
    order to show them the futility and hopelessness of life apart from God.
    1 Corinthians 6:9 proclaims that homosexual “offenders” will not
    inherit the kingdom of God.

    God does not create a person with homosexual desires. The Bible tells us
    that people become homosexuals because of sin (Romans 1:24-27) and
    ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a
    greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as some people are born
    with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the
    person’s choosing to sin by giving in to sinful desires. If a person is
    born with a greater susceptibility to anger/rage, does that make it
    right for him to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is
    true with homosexuality.

    However, the Bible does not describe homosexuality as a “greater” sin than any other. All sin is offensive to God. Homosexuality
    is just one of the many things listed in 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 that will
    keep a person from the kingdom of God. According to the Bible, God’s
    forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an
    adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God also promises the
    strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who
    will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1 Corinthians 6:11; 2
    Corinthians 5:17; Philippians 4:13).

    Recommended Resources:
    What Does the Bible Really Teach About Homosexuality? by Kevin DeYoung and 101 Frequently Asked Questions About Homosexuality by Mike Haley and Logos Bible Software.
    GOD does not make mistakes, and HE can not tolerate sin, any kind of sin, not just homosexuality. HE is HOLY, the creator of all life, author of all life. But HE did not create homosexuality, that is man made as a result of sin, living in a fallen world.
    Again I say..move on, go find a different baker to bake a cake. I’m sure there are plenty out there that will accommadate the wishes of gay couples. That is pretty simple really.
    God bless you all, and keep you in His light.

    • ʇsǝnƃ

      Genesis 19:1-13 about how the Sodomite treated poor travelers and those that aided them. Discussed for almost 2 millennium in the Talmud, never mentioned same sex behavior.

      Leviticus 19:22 Declares a particular sex act between men as ritually unclean because it was part of the Caanite rites. Nothing to do with homosexuality in general or people who aren’t under the Old Covenant.

      Romans 1:26-27 a group of animal headed god idolaters punished by God with lascivious desires against their natures. A condemnation of the hedonistic cults in Rome and their lusts, has nothing to do with married Christians as sexual desire within marriage is not lust.

      1 Corinthians 6:9 A condemnation of all the marital fidelity loopholes Roman culture allowed, no sex with those of a lower cast – male or female, no acting as a prostitute – male or female. Punctuated with 1 Timothy where the Old Covenant ’10 commandments’ loosely reproduced for those under the New Covenant. Adultery with women and men, one right after the other. Again, has nothing to do with married Christians.

      And God created us so that all people have all the genetic information they need to be male or female, masculine or feminine, attracted to men or women. He made us develop so that the female form is the base and the male modifications apply on top of that during fetal development with how our minds are constructed being the very last thing that is modified. He allowed many ways this modification could be inhibited and even totally prevented. He allowed women to be variable in their sensitivity to estrogen, He allowed men to be variable in their sensitivity to testosterone. His design allows for there to be people of virtually every combination of these traits.

      In the next world there will be no marry or marriage, we will all be as the angels in heaven (Matt 22:30) We will neither desire sex nor have a specific gender, those are things of this world not the next. And Christians walk in the next world and have no distinction between class, religion or sex right now as we walk in this. Fretting about ‘homosexuality’ is no more productive than doing so about heterosexuality – its why you are having it and how you are dealing with the person you do that will be of importance before the Throne. Christians are married and have sex with their spouse just fine whether they be male or female. Does it prevent the Christian from loving? From forgiving? From repenting every lost opportunity to love and forgive? No, it doesn’t and is therefore not a point of concern for those under the New Covenant sealed with the blood of Christ.

  • Grace Kim Kwon

    The Western nations must never oppress the Christians who live according to the Holy Bible and a clear conscience. Such oppression is so wrong. Apart from the Holy Bible, there is no civility and no lawfulness.