US Supreme Court Hears Case of Baker Punished for Declining to Make Cake for Same-Sex Celebration

WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument on Tuesday regarding whether or not a Christian baker in Colorado has the right to decline to make cakes for same-sex celebrations due to his religious convictions.

The nine justices naturally were divided over Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, with the more liberal judges expressing care not to disturb civil right laws and the more conservative judges appearing concerned about the infringement of religious liberty.

According to reports, Justice Anthony Kennedy seemed to be the man in the middle. While he posed a question asking if it could be “an affront to the gay community” if a sign were put in the window advising that a business does not service certain events, he also stated that Colorado has been “neither tolerant nor respectful” to the baker, and is guilty of “hostility to religion.”

“Tolerance is essential in a free society,” Kennedy said, according to Fox News. “And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch also expressed concern that the baker had been ordered to retrain his staff in accordance with state non-discrimination laws, suggesting that it could send the message that Christianity is discriminatory.

“[He would] have to teach that state law supersedes our religious beliefs,” Kennedy also remarked, according to SCOTUSBlog.

Justice Samuel Alito additionally noted that it is “odd” that at the time the men requested the cake, same-sex “marriage” was not legal in Colorado, yet Masterpiece Cakeshop could still be punished over the matter.

  • Connect with Christian News

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) Attorney Kristen Waggoner was questioned by Justice Elena Kagan, who seemed to be more skeptical of the argument that had been presented in favor of the baker. She asked where the line would be drawn for wedding-related businesses. Could jewelers, hairdressers and makeup stylists decline to be a part of a same-sex ceremony? Waggoner argued that those cases were different because they did not involve forms of speech.

“Some people might say that about cakes,” Kagan replied.

“If you want to be a part of our community, of our civic community, there’s certain behavior, conduct you can’t engage in,” Justice Sonia Sotomayor also stated. “And that includes not selling products that you sell to everyone else to people simply because of their either race, religion, national origin, gender, and in this case sexual orientation.”

But Justice John Roberts expressed concern that organizations such as Catholic Legal Services would be forced to take a case involving same-sex “marriage” regardless of its religious beliefs. Alito likewise worried that a Jewish baker could be forced to make a cake for a German Kristallnacht celebration.

“So Catholic Legal Services, would be put to the choice of either not providing any pro bono legal services or providing those services in connection with the same-sex marriage?” Roberts asked.

U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who addressed the court on behalf of the Trump administration, suggested that the court make a narrow allowance so that business owners are not forced to take part in events that are violative of their religion.

A decision is expected in the spring.

As previously reported, the case began in 2012 when Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado to look for options for their upcoming same-sex ceremony celebration. As Colorado—at the time—had 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.

However, after their arrival at the cake shop, Mullin and Craig were advised by owner Jack 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 events 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.”

However, Phillips says that it is not just same-sex celebrations that he declines. He also doesn’t create custom baked goods for bachelor parties or Halloween events, and remarked in a recent video that sometimes in a day he will turn down more requests than he accepts.

Phillips, who attends a Baptist church, said 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.

In December 2013, Judge Robert Spencer sided with the ACLU, contending that Phillips should have made the cake because he was not told that there would be any words or symbols written on it.

“Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage,” he wrote. “The act of preparing a cake is simply not ‘speech’ warranting First Amendment protection.”

In May 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld Spencer’s ruling, stating that Phillips violated the state’s civil rights law. The Commission then ordered that Phillips educate his staff in alignment with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, to implement new policies in light of the ruling, and to file quarterly compliance reports for two years. The reports were to outline each pastry creation request that was declined and the reason why to prove that Phillips’ religious beliefs no longer influence his business decisions.

Phillips filed an appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court’s rulings in August 2015, asserting that providing the cake for the ceremony 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,” the court ruled.

The matter was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case last year. Therefore, Phillips took his case to the nation’s highest court, which agreed in June to be the arbiter of the issue.

Phillips issued a statement outside of the Supreme Court following Tuesday’s oral argument, advising that he has no issue with serving homosexuals, but he cannot partake in an event celebrating any form of sin.

“Though I serve everyone who comes into my shop, like many other creative professionals, I don’t create custom designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience. I don’t create cakes that celebrate Halloween, promote sexual or anti-American themes, or disparage people, including individuals who identify as LGBT,” he said. “For me, it’s never about the person making the request. It’s about the message the person wants the cake to communicate.”

“I am here at the Supreme Court today because I respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would celebrate a view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith’s core teachings on marriage. I offered to sell the two gentlemen suing me anything else in my shop or to design a cake for them for another occasion,” Phillips continued.

“For that decision, which was guided by an established set of religious beliefs, I’ve endured a five-year court battle. It’s been very hard on me and my family. There have been tears and many difficult days for us. We have faced death threats and harassment,” he said. “It’s hard to believe that the government is forcing me to choose between providing for my family and employees and violating my relationship with God. That is not freedom. That is not tolerance.”


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, because of your generous support, we have received enough funds to send many audio Bibles to Iraqi and Syrian refugees displaced by ISIS in the Middle East. Many have been distributed and received with gladness. While we provide for the physical needs of the people, we seek to provide the eternal hope only found in Jesus Christ through the word of God. Would you join us by making a donation today to this important work? Please click here to send an audio Bible to a refugee family >>

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
  • Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D.

    Every true Christian MUST pray for this baker relative to him winning this case for the Lord and for our country! It is high time that we ended the harassment by the sodomist workers of iniquity (Ps. 5:5), so we can push back against this perversion being marketed as normal within our society. Our Bible teaches that sodomites and lesbos are worthy of death (Roman 1). Note the wording–worthy, not must be killed. And we need to treat them as such. If you chose to be a sodomite, then live with all the associated shame and consequences–no real jobs, no admissions to bakeries, restaurants, supermarkets, or other places where people handle food, and FBI surveillance relative to contact with children (as we need to also establish with another kind of pagan, the Cathlic priest). And certainly no service from any real Christian business!

    • DrIndica

      If you really want to live in a State ruled by religion, you should move to Iran

      • Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D.

        Indica:

        Relative to the kind of country the Christian wants to live in, it is very simple–a true Christian country! Duh! Not a Mooslim one like Iran, or a Cathlic one like Vatican, or a false Christian one.

        • DrIndica

          Your subjective conception of a “true Christian”.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Christianity only has an open definition to those who are ignorant, hateful or both. Which are you?

          • Tony Demarcus, Ph.D., D.D.

            Esteemed Brother Maxwell Edison:

            So well said! Indeed, the Christian is defined by the THE CHRISTIAN BIBLE, and what is explicitly contained within! That includes many verses that talk of, and separate (2 Cor 6:14, Rom 16:17), real Christian from false “Christians” who are in the name only, and from other satanists (Matt 12:30). What’s more, the Bible teaches us to judge righteously (Biblically) so that we know which is which and who is who!
            “thou shalt not respect the person of the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty: but in righteousness shalt thou judge thy neighbour.” Lev 19:15

          • DrIndica

            It’s pretty telling that anyone not confirming to your dogma is either ignorant or hateful. Good example of why I make no subscription to your paradise.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Then you want damnation. Not sure why.

        • ThroatwobblerMangrove

          It is spelled “Catholic”.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            appeal to some objective standard …. that you reject ……….. funny ……..

          • Silas Jennings

            The dictionary? Is an APPEAL? No, it is a consultation.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            even though the dictionary is flawed ….. it is a standard …. and you are attempting to appeal to it as a standard ….. when the standard that has been here ever since …. is rejected …. by you ….. because you want to be the arbiter ….. wait for it …… and you aint …..

          • Silas Jennings

            It is more than a standard, it is authoritative. No one questions the dictionary. It is important for there to be something like the dictionary which is observed by people regardless of their belief, which is why it is not an appeal. Your God is NOT universally recognized by people regardless of their belief, so what on earth are you talking about?

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … it is not “more” of anything ….. and it is not a standard when it contains errors and misstatements ….

          • Silas Jennings

            The dictionary doesn’t contain errors or misstatements. For the most part, all dictionaries define words in the same way.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            it contains all kinds of errors ….. and that you rely on it ….. makes your conclusions in ERROR ……….

          • Silas Jennings

            It is consistent, standard and authoritative. No one disputes it.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure …. whatever you want to believe …. oh wait … you do anyway ……..

          • Silas Jennings

            If you think the dictionary is wrong about something, what is it?

      • Maxwell Edison

        Troll post. Flagged.

        • DrIndica

          Troll? Well you may not cross my bridge.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        we are ruled by one here ….. it is just a PAGAN religion …..

        • DrIndica

          Pagan doesn’t mean what you think it means. Applies to a specific style of superstition.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            yeah … i do not know what that is supposed to mean ………..

  • Reason2012

    Does a black baker who has no problem selling cakes to white people have to use his business support the anti-black acts like a “the beliefs of black people do not matter” gathering? Would a black printer who has no problem serving white people have to make printings to support anti-black act like “the beliefs of black people do not matter” request? Does a mulsim baker who has no problem selling cakes to non-mulsimpeople have to use his business support the anti-muslim acts like a “lets draw muhammad” party?

    No. Those requests would be denied even if asked by another black person or another muslim.

    The only bigots in such a case are those who sought this black baker or black printer out to support this ACT. And so it goes with homosexual activists who seek out Christian bakers and Christian business owners to force them to support such anti-Christian acts no matter if it’s a homosexual who makes the request or not, whether a Christian makes the request or not, more so when such people have no problem serving those who declare they’re into homosexuality. 100% of their customers would be denied this request. They’d also be denied a request for a polygamous wedding cake.

    America is waking up to the deception from homosexual activists, and cases like this make it more obvious and make people more aware of what the real motive is of same-gender marriage and transgender bathrooms is: the offshoot criminalization of those who do not support these ACTS.

    And keep in mind, these same homosexual activists hate LGBT people. When 50 of them were_killed in Orlando, these same activists jumped to the defense of_islam as the “religion of peace”, while not saying a word to defend those who were_killed, but instead keep going after those “evil” Christians for not violating their Christian faith and perform anti-Christian acts.

    Keep in mind they are anti-Christian activists, not LGBT people in general, but activists that have proven they hate LGBT people and are just using them to push this anti-Christian agenda.

    • Michael C

      You don’t seem to understand how civil rights laws work.

      Discrimination is prohibited if the reason for the refusal of service is based on one of the outlined personal characteristics like race, religion, sex, or (in some states) sexual orientation.

      A bakery would not be permitted to refuse to sell a cake to an interracial couple because discrimination on the basis of race is illegal in the US.

      A bakery would not be permitted to refuse to sell a cake to an interfaith couple because discrimination on the basis of religion is illegal in the US.

      In some places, a bakery would not be permitted to refuse to sell a cake to a gay couple because discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is illegal in a minority of states.

      In most of the US, however, it is perfectly legal for businesses to deny gay people of employment, housing, and public accommodations (service at stores and restaurants).

      • Tina Tenace

        Gay marriage was not legal in the state at that time. So the baker was also declining to participate in an illegal activity.

        • Michael C

          So the baker was also declining to participate in an illegal activity.

          It was never against the law in the state of Colorado for two men or two women to be married.

          Phillips did not refuse service because the couple were criminals. He refused service because they were gay.

          • Reason2012

            No Michael – he has no problem serving them. That you have to be dishonest to push your agenda says it all.

            He denied their request of him to support anti-Christian acts with his business. He would deny that request to anyone who asked it, not just those into homosexuality.

          • Michael C

            The customer did not request the “support” of the bakery. They simply requested a product that the bakery sells.

            Bakeries cannot refuse to sell wedding cakes to interfaith couples or interracial couples even if they feel that these marriages are against their beliefs. The same is true in Colorado where it is illegal to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

          • Reason2012

            They didn’t only request a generic wedding cake – they asked for one to support an anti-Christian act, which can include adultery, same-gender, polygamy and so on.

            If they want to buy a generic cake, have at it. If they are determined to let the Christian know it’s for an anti-Christian act that violates his religious beliefs, the baker then has the right to not support acts that violate his personal beliefs.

            Do you believe people can ask a black business owner to support anti-black acts with his products even though he has no problem serving white people? If so, that makes you a bigot.

            And so it goes with forcing Christians to perform anti-Christian acts even though he has no problem serving non-Christians. That also makes you a bigot.

          • Michael C

            What is an “anti-black act” and what product is the customer requesting?

          • Reason2012

            What is an “anti-black act” and what product is the customer requesting?

            Now you’re pretending you don’t know what any anti-black, racists acts would be that black people would find offense? Not surprising as usual you can’t even be honest, Michael. I rest my case.

          • Michael C

            What is the product being requested?

      • Reason2012

        Discrimination is prohibited if the reason for the refusal of service is based on one of the outlined personal characteristics like race, religion, sex, or (in some states) sexual orientation.

        The customer is not refused b/c they’re claiming they’re homosexual – they’re being refused whehter they’re homosexual or not for asking them to promote an anti-Christian act, just like a black business owner who has no problem serving white people can refuse those who ask him to support an anti-black act. So by your own admission, there is no discrimination by the business owner, but instead the discrimination is by those who seek out black business owners to try forcing them to promote anti-black acts, or seek out Christians to try forcing them to support anti-Christian acts.

        • Michael C

          The customer is not refused b/c they’re claiming they’re homosexual

          I disagree.

          If a bakery refuses to sell a wedding cake to an interfaith couple because the business owner opposes interfaith marriage, this is considered discrimination on the basis of religion. Discrimination on the basis of religion is prohibited everywhere in the US.

          If a bakery refuses to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple because the business owner opposes interracial marriage, this is considered discrimination on the basis of race. Discrimination on the basis of race is prohibited everywhere in the US.

          If a bakery refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because the business owner opposes gay marriage, this is considered discrimination on the basis of religion. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is prohibited a minority of states in the US.

          • Reason2012

            I disagree.

            The facts do not agree with your opinion.
            Just like bakers that sell cakes to homosexuals all the time, but the moment they refuse to support an anti-Christian ACT, they’re sued.
            Just like t-shirt makers that sell t-shirts to homosexuals all the time, but the moment they refuse to support an anti-Christian ACT, they’re sued.
            Just like photographers that have no problem serving homosexuals, but the moment they’re asked to support an anti-Christian ACT, they’re sued.
            The facts contradict your claim: they serve those who are into homosexuality – it’s the anti-Christian ACTS they’re asked to do that they deny.
            It’s legal to have anti-black meetings – it’s called free speech – doesn’t mean a black business owner is legally forced to support those acts, which again contradicts your need for them to do so when it comes to Christians, which exposes your hypocrisy.

          • Michael C

            …so you believe that a bakery (that usually serves people of all races) would be permitted to refuse to sell a wedding cake to an interracial couple if they didn’t want to “support” those acts.

            Huh. That’s a very odd interpretation of our civil rights laws.

          • Reason2012

            Marriage is a man and a woman, not a man and a woman of certain skin colors. You’re reaching, Michael.

            So you believe people can ask a black business owner to support anti-black acts with his products? That’s the odd interpretation of our civil rights law. You support bigotry in the name of being against it. You don’t seem to understand how civil rights laws work.

            No, people cannot ask a black business owner to support anti-black acts with his products and people also cannot ask Christian business owners to support anti-Christian acts with his products. Both are cases of bigotry and discrimination against the business owner, the “customer” being the bigot in that case.

          • Michael C

            I think you’re being intentionally obtuse.

            Do you think that a baker who opposes gay marriage has more religious freedom than a baker who opposes interracial marriage?

          • Reason2012

            So you believe people can ask a black business owner to support anti-black acts with his products even though he has no problem serving white people? That makes you a bigot.

            And so it goes with forcing Christians to perform anti-Christian acts even though he has no problem serving non-Christians. That also makes you a bigot.

            I think you’re being intentionally obtuse

            That just shows you don’t have a point and you know it. If you wish to address the facts, please let me know.

          • Michael C

            Okay, you’re refusing to acknowledge my very clear and direct analogy and I don’t understand what you mean with your “anti-black acts” analogy.

            If I try to understand your analogy, I will be able to respond to it. In return, I expect you to respond to my interracial wedding cake analogy. Deal?

            Let’s pretend I’m the black baker and you’re the customer who wants an “anti-black act” cake.

            “Welcome to my store, how may I help you?”

            (now you respond by making a request for a product)

          • Reason2012

            I don’t understand what you mean with your “anti-black acts” analogy.

            You can’t think of any racist acts that would be offensive to black people? Seems you’re the one refusing to acknowledge my very clear and direct analogy. It’s clear you have no intent of being honest, Michael, which says it all. Let me know if you are interested in being honest.

          • Michael C

            This is the argument you’re presenting, I’m trying to understand it. Please, let’s explore your argument together.

            “Hello, welcome to my bakery, what can I do for you?”

          • Reason2012

            You make it clear you do not even read posts but then just re-ask questions that have already been addressed. What you seek is in many posts you respond to but barely read, that along with pretending you have no idea what black people would find offensive or racist.

          • Michael C

            …that along with pretending you have no idea what black people would find offensive or racist.

            You haven’t explained your argument yet. I’m trying to understand but you’re refusing to explain. What is this hypothetical customer asking for?

            “Hi, welcome to my bakery. We make custom cakes, how can I help you?”

  • meamsane

    “In December 2013, Judge Robert Spencer sided with the ACLU,
    contending that Phillips should have made the cake because he was not
    told that there would be any words or symbols written on it.”

    The problem here is that the cake does not have to have symbols or words on it at all, since the cake itself represents a “celebratory event called marriage”. That’s why they call it a wedding cake. Jack Phillips does not want to be complicit in a celebration of homo-marriage that he does not believe in.

    The two “gays” said before the court that they had no agenda. Yet they are the ones who sued the baker in hopes of forcing him to make cakes for “gay” weddings. I would call that an agenda, they are obviously not neutral.

    • Michael C

      Are you saying that you think that a bakery should be exempt from obeying non-discrimination laws if they don’t want to be complicit in a marriage that they do not believe in?

      • meamsane

        Exemptions are given as part of our system, since Government recognizes that a certain law may not be applicable (or just) in every circumstance.
        Non-discrimination laws that attempt to control the choices and decisions of the individual and individual citizens that own their own businesses (private property) are an abuse of power by the government and not found in the Constitution itself, and is blatantly Un-Constitutional.
        This violates “freedom of association” recognized in the 1st A. “freedom of assembly”. Your stance that a Christian baker should be forced to act contrary to his own beliefs is anti-liberty and pro-tyranny position.
        So yes, the Christian baker should be exempt from being forced to act contrary to his beliefs.
        Would you like to be forced to act contrary to your beliefs?

        • Michael C

          It sounds as though you oppose the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

          Is this correct?

          • Tina Tenace

            Illegal activities are not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

          • Michael C

            Illegal activities are not covered under the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            Um, sure, okay. But that seems a bit tangential to the conversation.

            None of the wedding vendor discrimination cases, including Masterpiece Cakeshop, deal with any sort of criminal activity.

        • I think someone made a video once asking college students if designers had a right to decline dressing the first lady. They all answered that the designers had a right to decline because they may see it as endorsing the Trump Administration and would be in conflict with their beliefs.

          He then asked them if a Christian baker has the right to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding. You should have seen these poor college students. They were so tied up in knots. Many of them expressed that they felt that it would be wrong to deny a gay couple their wedding cake, but they could not defend their position as to why.

          • Michael C

            I’ve seen the video. The attempted logic of the producers (Alliance Defending Freedom, a group that supports the criminalization of homosexuality) was fatally flawed.

            Sometimes kids have the ability to understand complex concepts even when they lack the depth of knowledge to articulate their defense. It’s not at all hypocritical to hold differing opinions on those two scenarios because, legally speaking, they’re very different. Like, wildly.

            Firstly, in our country, we have decided that there are some reasons for discrimination that are unacceptable. We have outlined a few specific characteristics that cannot be used as an excuse for discrimination. “Being a politician” is not one of those characteristics. There’s no law that says that a business cannot discriminate against a customer because they’re a politician. There are laws, however, that say that a business can’t discriminate against a customer because they’re Christian, or Chinese, female, or (in a minority of places) because they’re gay.

            Second, these civil rights laws that protect people from discrimination on the basis of their religion, race, color, sex, sexual orientation, etc. only apply to employment, housing, and public accommodations (stores, restaurants, open-to-the-public type places).

            A couture gown designer is not operating a public accommodation. The non-discrimination laws that apply to the local Dress Barn don’t apply to a couture gown designer because they’re not operating an open-to-the-public business.

            Even if politicians and their spouses were legally protected from discrimination (they’re not), it would still be legal for a designer to refuse to make them a couture gown.

            It appears that college freshmen are sometimes smarter that the lawyers working for ADF.

          • Which law specifically is it that does not allow for discrimination based on sexual orientation? Or is that interpretation based on case law?

          • Of course I find it like two seconds later…It is the Colorado State Civil Rights laws that specifically mention sexual orientation. I did not see that specified in the Civil Rights of 1964 (but I think I remember a court ruling or interpretation stating that “sex” is the same as “sexual orientation).

          • Michael C

            You are correct that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not protect people from discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. A minority of states protect gay people in their state laws (most do not).

            Further, I don’t think that a custom cake would be covered by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because the definition of a “public accommodation” is narrower on the federal level. Also, I don’t believe the CRA protects people from discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of their sex.

          • Michael C

            (but I think I remember a court ruling or interpretation stating that “sex” is the same as “sexual orientation).

            I believe that gender identity discrimination has been deemed the same as sex discrimination in federal courts but I don’t think the same argument has been made tying sexual orientation discrimination to sex discrimination.

    • Tangent002 ✓

      Did Rosa Parks have an ‘agenda’?

      • Maxwell Edison

        What does Rosa Parks have to do with this?

        • Tangent002 ✓

          She was refusing to be treated like a second-class citizen.

          • Maxwell Edison

            Homosexuals are not being treated like second-class citizens. That’s a lie.

  • HpO

    No matter how you cut this cake, my fellow born-again Christian brother Jack Phillips has broken The Apostolic Rule of Christian Conduct Outside the Church.

    Scriptures are clear on this verdict.

    Acts 24:14-16
    1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 9-13
    2 Corinthians 1:12
    2 Corinthians 4:1-2
    Galatians 4:9-10
    Philippians 2:12-15
    Colossians 4:2-6
    1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 7-8, 10-12
    1 Timothy 3:2, 7
    1 Peter 2:11-12, 15-17
    1 Peter 3:15-16

    • Maxwell Edison

      By doing what?

      • HpO

        Obedience.

        Jack Phillips was supposed “to maintain always a blameless conscience both before God and before [his gay couple customers].” (Acts 24:14-16.)

        Jack Phillips was not supposed to “judge [his gay couple customers] outside his church … [but only] to judge those who are within his church? … Those who are outside … God judges”. (1 Corinthians 5:1-5, 9-13.)

        Jack Phillips’ “proud confidence [was supposed to be] … the testimony of [his] conscience, that in holiness and godly sincerity, not in fleshly wisdom but in the grace of God, [he has] conducted [himself] in [his gay couple customers’] world”. (2 Corinthians 1:12.)

        Jack Phillips was not supposed to be “walking in craftiness or adulterating the word of God, but by the manifestation of truth commending [himself] to [his gay couple customers’] conscience in the sight of God.” (2 Corinthians 4:1-2.)

        “While [he had] opportunity”, Jack Phillips was supposed to “do good to [his gay couple customers]”. (Galatians 4:9-10.)

        Jack Phillips was supposed to “do all things without grumbling or disputing; so that [he] will prove [himself] to be blameless and innocent, children of God above reproach in the midst of [his gay couple customers], among whom [he’s to] appear as lights in the world”. (Philippians 2:12-15.)

        Jack Phillips was supposed to “conduct [himself] with wisdom toward [his gay couple customers], making the most of the opportunity. … [His] speech [must] always be with grace, as though seasoned with salt, so that [he] will know how you should respond to [his gay couple customers].” (Colossians 4:2-6.)

        Jack Phillips was supposed to “to make it [his] ambition to lead a quiet life and attend to [his] own business and work with [his] hands, … so that you will behave properly toward [his gay couple customers].” (1 Thessalonians 4:3-5, 7-8, 10-12.)

        Jack Phillips was supposed to “as aliens and strangers … keep [his] behavior excellent among [his gay couple customers], so that in the thing in which they slander [him] as evildoers, they may because of [his] good deeds, as they observe them, glorify God in the day of visitation. … [He’s] not [to] use [his] freedom as a covering for evil, but use it as bondslaves of God. Honor all [gay couple customers]”. (1 Peter 2:11-12, 15-17.)

        Jack Phillips was supposed to “keep a good conscience so that in the thing in which [he’s] slandered, those [gay couple customers] who revile [his] good behavior in Christ will be put to shame.” (1 Peter 3:15-16.)

        • Maxwell Edison

          Jack Phillips is not being slandered. A same-sex couple is seeking to punish the man for saying no to not making a cake, but putting something on the cake that directly conflicts with his faith, not unlike asking a Jew to place a swastika on a cake.

          More than that, Phillips has been ordered to denounce his faith to satisfy the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or whatever its called.

          What you are suggesting by way of Bible verses is heresy. Nowhere does the Word of God say we are to tolerate sin, or knowingly partake in the sin of others.

          Get thee behind me, Satan.

          • Michael C

            …but putting something on the cake that directly conflicts with his faith…

            What do you think Masterpiece Cakeshop was asked to put on the cake?

          • Maxwell Edison

            You answered the question yourself.

          • Michael C

            You answered the question yourself.

            No, I actually didn’t. You said that Masterpiece Cakeshop refused service because they would refuse to put something on a cake that conflicts with owner, Jack Phillips, faith.

            I’m gonna ask again because you’re avoiding answering.

            What do you think Masterpiece Cakeshop was asked to put on the cake?

          • Maxwell Edison

            Something that went against his faith.

            It wasn’t about the cake but what this couple wanted on it. But you know that, and are being deliberately intellectually dishonest.

          • Michael C

            Something that went against his faith. It wasn’t about the cake but what this couple wanted on it. But you know that, and are being deliberately intellectually dishonest.

            I’m sorry but it is you who is mistaken.

            You might be surprised to learn that in none of these wedding vendor discrimination cases did the customers request anything that the business wouldn’t willingly sell to anyone else.

            The couple did not request anything “on” the cake.

            The business owner refused to make the couple any cake for their wedding reception. He did not refuse the order because of anything they requested on the cake. He refused the order because they were a gay couple.

            If you don’t believe me, perhaps you’ll believe Jack Phillips himself. Jack describes the situation when the couple entered the bakery as follows;

            “‘We’re here to look at wedding cakes,’ he said, ‘it’s for our wedding.’ And so right away I know, this is not a cake that I can make.”

          • Maxwell Edison

            What makes a wedding cake a wedding cake? What’s in it or what’s on it?

            Think about that then get back with me.

          • Michael C

            What makes a wedding cake a wedding cake? What’s in it?…

            Eggs? Sugar?

            …or what’s on it?

            White frosting?

            Jack Phillips refuses to make cakes with eggs, sugar, and white frosting because those things go against his faith?

            Are you thinking that the couple asked for a cake topper with two grooms? They didn’t. I’ve never actually seen a wedding cake with little figurine toppers. Do people still do that?

          • Maxwell Edison

            In other words, the application of common sense has you dumbfounded.

            No surprise there.

          • Michael C

            In other words, the application of common sense has you dumbfounded. No surprise there.

            I’m apparently not smart enough to infer what you’re refusing to say.

            What is it that you think the couple wanted on or in the cake that violated Jack Phillips’ faith.

            Please just come out and say it already. No more games. Just answer the question.

          • Maxwell Edison

            “I’m apparently not smart enough.”

            Your words. Not mine.

          • Michael C

            Thank you for representing Christ in this conversation with me. Have a nice night.

          • HpO

            Brother Michael C – you gave it your best shot and the result isn’t as disappointing as it may appear. I didn’t know until this weekend, actually, that my whatever with this guy segued to you reaching out to him. I wish Disqus would invent conference-type of commenting on articles soon.

          • HpO

            tsk tsk tsk

            hear that, coming from behind … ?

            Michael C is good

          • Maxwell Edison

            Yep. Sounds like a troll. Wish to be flagged?

          • HpO

            This is my first read/commented article, actually.

            Heather Clark, “Trump Inauguration to Feature Prayer of Prosperity Preacher Paula White Who ‘Secured His Calling’”, Christian News Network, December 29, 2016.

          • Etranger

            We actually know from the facts of the case: Nothing.

          • Mr. David

            Good post

    • Drake

      Most of your scripture references are wonderful for this– there are a few that seem out of place – perhaps your version is not the same as mine (KJV). It might be helpful if you were to put the scripture down and not just the reference. Since the Word does not return void, our hope is that it will reach those that are without, and they will probably only read it if put in front of them.

      We know that Jesus came not to destroy men’s lives, but to save them. (Luke 9:56) But to be saved there is only one way: “Jesus saith unto him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.'” (John 14:6) “Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” (1 Cor 6:9,10) “I
      will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how
      that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt,
      afterward destroyed them that believed not.” (Jude 1:5)

      • HpO

        I did actually, brother Drake. Scroll down. Relevant scriptures were posted right before one Maxwell Edison told me off to get behind a mall or something.

        I use NASB. Have so since got saved by the blood of Jesus.

        Now I put biblegateway dot org to good use.

        Plus biblehub for greek text analysis of this verse or that.

        KJV is fine. ESV is better, so I hear. But I grew up with NASB, thank you very much.

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    Nation Fondly Remembers Time Just Two Years Ago When Everyone Said Gay Marriage Wouldn’t Affect Christians
    December 6

    • Michael C

      This event occurred five years ago.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        26 Jun 2015 … OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES …. really mikey …. /SMH ……. fyi …. five is the number of fingers you have on your hand ….. 2017 – 2015 = 2 ………….

        • Michael C

          26 Jun 2015 … OBERGEFELL ET AL. v. HODGES …. really mikey …. /SMH ……. fyi …. five is the number of fingers you have on your hand ….. 2017 – 2015 = 2 ………….

          The event described in this article occurred five years ago.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure …. whatever ….. hint ….. it is a satire article ……… but whatever ………

          • Michael C

            sure …. whatever ….. hint ….. it is a satire article ……… but whatever ………

            This article isn’t satire. It’s news from a politically conservative Christian perspective.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            Babylon Bee is a satire site ….. but again …. whatever …….

          • Michael C

            Babylon Bee is a satire site ….. but again …. whatever …….

            wrong site. I’ve never heard of babylon bee nor have I ever commented there.

      • HpO

        Ha-ha-ha-ha-ha

        Man U R good

    • HpO

      Aw Snap!

      Courtesy of brother Michael C

  • Amos Moses – He>i

    ‘Our Love Life Is None Of Your Business,’ Says Couple Forcing Business Owner To Approve Their Love Life
    December 7, 2017

    hmmmmm ………..

    • Silas Jennings

      Not approve, tolerate. Sorry, Babylon Bee.

      • Amos Moses – He>i

        “tolerate” is a lie ……. that is not what is being asked ….. Acceptance without exception is what is being DEMANDED ………..

        • Silas Jennings

          You can hate it all you like, nobody cares. But you can’t use your faith to keep people from living their lives, as you are trying to do here.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            not hate …. PITY ….. and i do not use my faith to stop them from anything ….. BUT i do use the TRUTH to point out their LIES and that what they are doing IS LYING about what they do …………..

          • Silas Jennings

            No, you use scripture, not truth.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you do not recognize the truth ….. so just your opinion ….. AGAIN …… and you have NO OBJECTIVE MORALITY ….. so just your opinion …. AGAIN ……….

          • Silas Jennings

            Objective morality does not mean Christianity.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            OBJECTIVE MORALITY means TRUTH ….. Christ is TRUTH ……… so yes it does ………

          • Silas Jennings

            There we go. We are done here. If you think that’s what objective morality is, of course people are disagreeing with you, because that’s not what it is.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            sure …. they disagree because they cannot stand the truth …. they reject the truth ….. and if they want to disagree ….. i do not care ….. their argument is with the author of the OBJECTIVE MORALITY …… and that is God ……… and God is truth ………..

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            “We are done here”

            do not go away mad …. just …………..

          • Silas Jennings

            I fail to understand why you’re on a discussion forum when you consider yourself to be right about everything, including things where you’ve been demonstrated to be wrong.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            nope … GOD is right about everything … has nothing to do with me ….. and …. UNLIKE YOU ….. i do not go to A-theist forums to have a discussion about christianity ….. see … i LET YOU BELIEVE whatever you want to ….. ALL YOUR LIES ….. YOU OTOH …… have a sick need and desire to come here for ….. what was your lying reason again? ………….

          • Silas Jennings

            Your first mistake is assuming I am an atheist (not a-theist). I am not. Your second is calling me a liar when I have not lied about anything.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you think you are God and that God is not ….. pretty much the definition … but in any case … you defend them as if one ….. and if it is a-theist or agnostic …… a difference without a difference ….. you still deny God …………. and think you are in a position to judge God and truth … and you aint …….

          • Silas Jennings

            No. I don’t think I’m God, and I’ve never said that.
            You, on the other hand, are ALWAYS saying that what you believe is what God believes. And every time I point out to you that other Christians, the ones you call “false”, feel EXACTLY the same, that they speak for God, you invoke No True Scotsman.
            You are’t God, Amos. You should admit your statements, as well-meaning as they might be, are not necessarily God’s own words.

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            you are your own god … and you think you get to sit in judgement of God and the truth ……

          • Amos Moses – He>i

            FYI ….. God does not “believe” …. God DECREES ……….

          • HpO

            He does goes over the top, don’t he though

            I’m a born-again Christian and no born-again Christians are ever going to take God & Jesus away from me no matter the non-synchronicity, the glitch, the disparity between them & Them

            Love those …… donchanow

            Oh those dots

            None of which serves as an actual period to a thought, a phrase – never mind a sentence

            Like, what’s the typical number of dots? – I daren’t count lest I go Braille-ing

            Silas, be like me if possible – look for the God & Jesus of the 1st apostles and disciples

            The 21st century version of such is – vrooom – outta here

    • HpO

      The other day me & my Better 5-Eighth went to this shop for this gadget for our limousine. The gadget vendor was asking us something, to which we said, “WHAT? ‘Our Love Life Is None Of Your Business'”. Followed by us “Couple Forcing Business Owner To Approve [Our] Love Life”.

      December 9, 2017

      wwwhhhhaaaatttt ……… right?

  • If they choose to use it, Reynold’s v. the United States (arguably the most consequential of all Supreme Court decisions) has already set the precedent:

    “…If we believe the law of WE THE PEOPLE is supreme, then all law that contravenes the Constitution, including Yahweh’s commandments, statutes, and judgments, is null and void. Reynolds v. United States (1879) addressed the Mormon Church’s claim that polygamy was a right afforded them under Amendment 1. Because most Americans find polygamy repugnant, the magnitude of Supreme Court Justice Morrison R. Waite’s decision is lost on them [note especially the first and last sentences]:

    ‘Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship, would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice?… So here, as a law of the organization of society under the exclusive dominion of the United States, it is provided that plural marriages shall not be allowed. Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land.’12

    “Contrary to Matthew 7:21-27 and James 1:22-25, the Supreme Court ruled that a man’s actions can be severed and isolated from his faith and judged illegal according to the Constitution and its supplemental edicts. This precedent paved the way for any Christian action based upon a Biblical conviction – such
    as preaching against sodomy [or refusing to bake a cake for two lesbians or sodomites] – to be arbitrarily outlawed in the same fashion. Had the framers established Yahweh’s immutable law and its predetermined morality as the supreme law of the land, polygamy and human sacrifice (and all other issues) would have fallen under its jurisdiction and thereby determined to be either lawful or unlawful….”

    For more, see Chapter 9 “Article 6: The Supreme Law of the Land” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective.” Click on my name, then our website. Go to our Online Books page, click on the top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 9.

    Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

    • HpO

      So, Lawyerman, if, since, “most Americans find polygamy repugnant, the magnitude of Supreme Court Justice Morrison R. Waite’s decision is lost on them” – your legal wisdom is:

      Since “most Americans find [LGTBQ not] repugnant, the magnitude of Supreme Court Justice Morrison R. Waite’s decision [won’t be] lost on them”.

      Good one. Where again do I get a free copy of this wisdom tooth of yours?

      • Non sequitur

        • HpO

          Had to look “non sequitur” up for the appropriate response to it:

          (1) “If it’s not actually a non-sequitur, give them an eyeball then keep going like they didn’t say anything.”

          (2) “The best way to respond to an attempt to derail you is to just completely override it.”

          (3) Ignore it; “most people don’t even know what they mean when they say it”.

          (4) “So’s your face.”

          All taken under advisement. But of course. (Response #4 is tempting, though.)