SC Decision Will Affect Us All

[EmmaLee]

Wasn't sure where to post this article - in Principles of Liberty or Last Days/Sign of the Times, as it fits in both. Let us pray the SC chooses on the side of Liberty, or this will surely help bring forward the prophesied last days destructions.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/24267/one ... =mattwalsh


One Of The Most Important Cases In Recent Supreme Court History Will Be Argued Tomorrow. Here's What You Need To Know.

By Ben Shapiro
December 4, 2017

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court is slated to hear oral argument in the famed Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The case is a seminal one for religious liberty. It pits the ability of local and state governments to enforce “anti-discrimination law” against religious practice rights for businessowners; it essentially decides whether or not religious people can practice their religion in their business. This goes to the heart of freedom of religion in the United States.

The case revolves around a man named Jack Phillips. Jack is a baker. He makes and decorates cakes. He has a simple rule: he’ll sell anyone a cake. Gay, straight, transgender, green. Anyone. But he won’t make a custom cake for every event. As a religious Christian, this means that he sees it as sinful participation to make a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. So he’ll make a cake for a same-sex wedding, but he won’t decorate it as such (no groom-groom wedding toppers, for example). He also refuses to make cakes that push anti-gay messages, anti-American messages, and adult-themed messages.

That’s his Constitutional right. But the Leftists at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t think so. They think that Jack must be forced to violate his own religious beliefs and decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding, or stop making any cakes at all. As a result of their ruling, Jack lost 40% of his business and more than half of his employees — all for abiding by his Biblical beliefs in the most tolerant possible way. He was even told that he had to re-educate employees, including his family members, and report to the government what his artistic decisions were, listing all the cakes he’d failed to bake and why.

This is obviously fascistic stuff. But the LGBT advocacy Left believes that religious freedom is a true threat to LGBT rights — that we all have a right to one another’s services. Thus, Sarah Jones writes in New Republic:

Why should the law obligate a calligrapher or a photographer or baker to take a specific order? But on closer review, the ADF’s argument breaks down. Wedding vendors don’t run ministries. They run businesses that are open to the public. And while business owners do have some legal flexibility over who they do or do not serve, this isn’t a matter of no shoes, no shirt, no service. The action Jack Phillips wants to take is morally equivalent to rejecting a customer because they’re blind or female or black. It doesn’t mean very much if Phillips allows a queer person to buy a birthday cake; the queer person has to hide any public evidence of his queerness in order to receive service. What Phillips wants is for the law to weight his personal beliefs about a person’s intrinsic identity above that person’s right to access a business.

Jones actually hits the nail on the head with this last sentence: the Left wants the government’s ability to compel people to provide service to trump the personal beliefs of individuals. What makes this case so compelling is the religious aspect; we all know religious people with scruples strong enough to withstand the draw of capitalistic enterprise. But this isn’t a religious case at all. It’s a freedom of association and freedom of speech case. Religious practice shouldn’t be bound to the home or church — religious life infuses every aspect of living. But by the same token, an atheist should be free to reject a Christ-themed cake, a Leftist speechwriter should be free to reject a right-wing politician, and The New Republic should be free to refuse to deliver to the Trump White House. Does this mean that people we dislike will be able to act in ways we dislike? Absolutely. But freedom lives in the spaces where we acknowledge that we have no right to another’s labor or approval. Tyranny grows when we refuse to acknowledge those spaces.

If Masterpiece Cakeshop goes the wrong way, the country will only grow more polarized. That’s because religious people across America will be compelled to leave states in which anti-religious anti-discrimination regulations are promulgated, and move instead to red states. Red states will grow redder; blue states will grow bluer. The divide throughout the country will grow. And religious observance — and freedom of speech — will continue to wither on the vine.

[Vision]

It's a wedding cake who cares if the customers are gay or straight.

[EmmaLee]

Way to entirely miss the point. It's no wonder this country has gone to hell.

[Michelle]

It's a wedding cake who cares if the customers are gay or straight.

They don't care if the customer is gay or straight: they care that they don't endorse something against their conscience.

[EmmaLee]

state.jpg (30.52 KiB) Viewed 1182 times

[Vision]

It's a wedding cake who cares if the customers are gay or straight.

They don't care if the customer is gay or straight: they care that they don't endorse something against their conscience.

Did the bakery owner only sale wedding cakes to virgins? Nice random application of conscience.

[Vision]

state.jpg

Emmalee the saints fled the US in the 1800's to seek religious freedom. Once they accepted statehood the battle for religious freedom was lost. We are so short sighted in our views of religious freedom nowadays

[Alaris]

It's a wedding cake who cares if the customers are gay or straight.

They don't care if the customer is gay or straight: they care that they don't endorse something against their conscience.

Did the bakery owner only sale wedding cakes to virgins? Nice random application of conscience.

If someone asked for a cake endorsing premarital sex, they possibly would have been against that as well. The issue isn't about a random application of conscience but whether the state can force individuals to provide goods and services that conflict with religious views. This issue is a slippery slope that ends in the state forcing the LDS church to perform gay marriages in temples. The adversary is real and the LDS church is absolutely at the center of his cross-hairs.

EmmaLee was right to post this and the David O McKay quote she shared is spot on.

[EmmaLee]

We're close, but not quite there. A person, an individual, in the U.S. can still publicly say a homosexual lifestyle (for example) is sinful, and not be arrested. Soon, that will change. Churches that have accepted the devil's hand and taken the 501(c)(3) are already feeling the squeeze of limited free speech, and will not be able to preach against any politically correct sins one day in the near future.

[Vision]

It's a wedding cake who cares if the customers are gay or straight.

They don't care if the customer is gay or straight: they care that they don't endorse something against their conscience.

Did the bakery owner only sale wedding cakes to virgins? Nice random application of conscience.

If someone asked for a cake endorsing premarital sex, they possibly would have been against that as well. The issue isn't about a random application of conscience but whether the state can force individuals to provide goods and services that conflict with religious views. This issue is a slippery slope that ends in the state forcing the LDS church to perform gay marriages in temples. The adversary is real and the LDS church is absolutely at the center of his cross-hairs.

EmmaLee was right to post this and the David O McKay quote she shared is spot on.

Alaris

The Church will get out of the marriage business before they ever marry any gays in the temple. Before you go reacting, many temples around the world only perform sealings because the governments in those countries don't allow ecclisastical marriage.

This is completely about random application of conscience. If the shop owner had just sold the cake and not judged the gay men trying to buy the cake this would not even be a court case. Leave judgements to God. If someone sue thee, give them thy cloak also.

I never said Emmalee wasn't right to post this, I just disagree with this being about religious freedom. The original act was about buying a cake, it evolved into a fight about religious freedom/gay rights

[Arenera]

Weddings will no longer be performed in LDS Chapels or Temples.

Sealings will be done in temples. No cake allowed.

[Alaris]

They don't care if the customer is gay or straight: they care that they don't endorse something against their conscience.

Did the bakery owner only sale wedding cakes to virgins? Nice random application of conscience.

If someone asked for a cake endorsing premarital sex, they possibly would have been against that as well. The issue isn't about a random application of conscience but whether the state can force individuals to provide goods and services that conflict with religious views. This issue is a slippery slope that ends in the state forcing the LDS church to perform gay marriages in temples. The adversary is real and the LDS church is absolutely at the center of his cross-hairs.

EmmaLee was right to post this and the David O McKay quote she shared is spot on.

Alaris

The Church will get out of the marriage business before they ever marry any gays in the temple. Before you go reacting, many temples around the world only perform sealings because the governments in those countries don't allow ecclisastical marriage.

This is completely about random application of conscience. If the shop owner had just sold the cake and not judged the gay men trying to buy the cake this would not even be a court case. Leave judgements to God. If someone sue thee, give them thy cloak also.

I never said Emmalee wasn't right to post this, I just disagree with this being about religious freedom. The original act was about buying a cake, it evolved into a fight about religious freedom/gay rights

The government / the judicial system should not make laws or enforce laws that compel people to provide services period let alone services that violate their conscience. This isn't about "judging" people. This is about freedom. You are free to order a cake. I am free to say "No" for any reason. Or at least I should be. This whole farce is an obvious facade by the adversary to further his agenda of compulsion at the expense of agency. Any attempts to minimize the implications of this case furthers his agenda, not the Lord's. You can know this with a perfect knowledge:

Moroni 7:15 For behold, my brethren, it is given unto you to judge, that ye may know good from evil; and the way to judge is as plain, that ye may know with a perfect knowledge, as the daylight is from the dark night.
16 For behold, the Spirit of Christ is given to every man, that he may know good from evil; wherefore, I show unto you the way to judge; for every thing which inviteth to do good, and to persuade to believe in Christ, is sent forth by the power and gift of Christ; wherefore ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of God.
17 But whatsoever thing persuadeth men to do evil, and believe not in Christ, and deny him, and serve not God, then ye may know with a perfect knowledge it is of the devil; for after this manner doth the devil work, for he persuadeth no man to do good, no, not one; neither do his angels; neither do they who subject themselves unto him.

Whoops. Moroni is telling us to judge.

[Alaris]

Weddings will no longer be performed in LDS Chapels or Temples.

Sealings will be done in temples. No cake allowed.

That will stop the adversary. whew. [/sarcasm]

[Arenera]

Weddings will no longer be performed in LDS Chapels or Temples.

Sealings will be done in temples. No cake allowed.

That will stop the adversary. whew. [/sarcasm]

Finish getting rid of Boy Scouts. What’s left?

[Alaris]

Weddings will no longer be performed in LDS Chapels or Temples.

Sealings will be done in temples. No cake allowed.

That will stop the adversary. whew. [/sarcasm]

Finish getting rid of Boy Scouts. What’s left?

Just all the telestial things of the world. That's all

[EmmaLee]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/ ... t-and-cake

The Supreme Court and Cake
Written by John F. McManus

Five years have passed since a Colorado baker of cakes refused to create one of his masterpieces for two men who wanted it to celebrate their “marriage.” It’s hard to believe that this incident is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. But it is, and the fact that it has reached such heights indicates how far our nation has descended toward destruction of common sense and the commonly held values that formerly undergirded our nation.

Cake maker Jack Phillips says he has a right to refuse the business of a particular customer whose fundamental intention is not to purchase a decorated cake but to use the transaction to force acceptance of homosexual “marriage.” On religious grounds, he doesn’t approve of “gay marriage,” and his refusal to build a wedding cake for a homosexual duo supposedly violates a portion of the U.S. Constitution banning discrimination. I searched but I couldn’t find the particular part of the Constitution on which this case is built. Legal beagles claim it’s discrimination, and that’s something terribly bad. Half a century ago, discrimination was so highly regarded that the Herbert-Tareyton cigarette company advertised its product as “the cigarette for discriminating people.” And a common assessment of the esteem accorded discrimination back then insisted that the only people who don’t discriminate “are prostitutes and fools.”

Sadly, commonly held attitudes of 50 years ago have been pushed aside in the rush to overturn cultural, religious, and even economic mores. Some would claim this development to be “progress.” But that’s another word whose meaning has been turned upside down.

Shouldn’t Jack Phillips have a right to refuse the business of someone who walks into his store and intends, not so much to buy a cake, but to have the planned transaction force acceptance of something abhorred by Phillips and many others? Why does Phillips have to provide an approved reason for saying “No” to a potential customer he knows has an agenda that far exceeds buying a cake? Isn’t his business his property, even his “castle,” a place where his right to refuse doing business with someone sacrosanct?

A deeper look into this matter shows that the homosexual couple seeking a cake from Phillips planned to have it at their ceremony in New York, not in Colorado. They obviously chose to challenge the Lakewood, Colorado, baker’s distaste for gay marriage. So, the issue isn’t really one of mere refusal to do business with someone. It’s about forcing acceptance of homosexual marriage. By definition, marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual marriage is no more a marriage than labeling something water when it isn’t a combination of hydrogen and oxygen.

It’s no surprise to find a spokesman for the ACLU’s Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) division taking the side of the supposedly aggrieved cake customers. James Essex of the ACLU claims: “You have freedom to believe and to preach your faith until your actions harm other people.” Does refusal to cooperate with the demands of homosexuals amount to harm? If so, what about possible harm done to a baker who refuses to participate, even in a slight way, in a practice he considers reprehensible, even sinful? Also, what about harming the moral character of this nation?

The Supreme Court will hear Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the fall. The case progressed from rulings at lower levels favoring the claims of the two men who insist that they are victims of unjust discrimination. Phillips’s attorney David Cortman rightly states, “Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government.”

That makes sense, of course. But good sense doesn’t always prevail, especially when so much more than discrimination is at stake. The high court’s willingness to rule in this case about cake signals that there are far more important matters at stake.

[EmmaLee]

Some articles worth reading -

http://www.heritage.org/religious-liber ... dom-matter

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/s ... rimination

http://www.dailywire.com/news/7135/fede ... en-shapiro

[Arenera]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/ ... t-and-cake

The Supreme Court and Cake
Written by John F. McManus

Five years have passed since a Colorado baker of cakes refused to create one of his masterpieces for two men who wanted it to celebrate their “marriage.” It’s hard to believe that this incident is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. But it is, and the fact that it has reached such heights indicates how far our nation has descended toward destruction of common sense and the commonly held values that formerly undergirded our nation.

Cake maker Jack Phillips says he has a right to refuse the business of a particular customer whose fundamental intention is not to purchase a decorated cake but to use the transaction to force acceptance of homosexual “marriage.” On religious grounds, he doesn’t approve of “gay marriage,” and his refusal to build a wedding cake for a homosexual duo supposedly violates a portion of the U.S. Constitution banning discrimination. I searched but I couldn’t find the particular part of the Constitution on which this case is built. Legal beagles claim it’s discrimination, and that’s something terribly bad. Half a century ago, discrimination was so highly regarded that the Herbert-Tareyton cigarette company advertised its product as “the cigarette for discriminating people.” And a common assessment of the esteem accorded discrimination back then insisted that the only people who don’t discriminate “are prostitutes and fools.”

Sadly, commonly held attitudes of 50 years ago have been pushed aside in the rush to overturn cultural, religious, and even economic mores. Some would claim this development to be “progress.” But that’s another word whose meaning has been turned upside down.

Shouldn’t Jack Phillips have a right to refuse the business of someone who walks into his store and intends, not so much to buy a cake, but to have the planned transaction force acceptance of something abhorred by Phillips and many others? Why does Phillips have to provide an approved reason for saying “No” to a potential customer he knows has an agenda that far exceeds buying a cake? Isn’t his business his property, even his “castle,” a place where his right to refuse doing business with someone sacrosanct?

A deeper look into this matter shows that the homosexual couple seeking a cake from Phillips planned to have it at their ceremony in New York, not in Colorado. They obviously chose to challenge the Lakewood, Colorado, baker’s distaste for gay marriage. So, the issue isn’t really one of mere refusal to do business with someone. It’s about forcing acceptance of homosexual marriage. By definition, marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual marriage is no more a marriage than labeling something water when it isn’t a combination of hydrogen and oxygen.

It’s no surprise to find a spokesman for the ACLU’s Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) division taking the side of the supposedly aggrieved cake customers. James Essex of the ACLU claims: “You have freedom to believe and to preach your faith until your actions harm other people.” Does refusal to cooperate with the demands of homosexuals amount to harm? If so, what about possible harm done to a baker who refuses to participate, even in a slight way, in a practice he considers reprehensible, even sinful? Also, what about harming the moral character of this nation?

The Supreme Court will hear Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the fall. The case progressed from rulings at lower levels favoring the claims of the two men who insist that they are victims of unjust discrimination. Phillips’s attorney David Cortman rightly states, “Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government.”

That makes sense, of course. But good sense doesn’t always prevail, especially when so much more than discrimination is at stake. The high court’s willingness to rule in this case about cake signals that there are far more important matters at stake.

Would the same apply to rejecting a black couple, or Muslim couple?

[Vision]

Weddings will no longer be performed in LDS Chapels or Temples.

Sealings will be done in temples. No cake allowed.

That will stop the adversary. whew. [/sarcasm]

If the church had a world wide no marriage policy it could have stayed out of the fray. I wish they would have stopped marriages before prop 8 ever happened.

[Vision]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/ ... t-and-cake

The Supreme Court and Cake
Written by John F. McManus


Shouldn’t Jack Phillips have a right to refuse the business of someone who walks into his store and intends, not so much to buy a cake, but to have the planned transaction force acceptance of something abhorred by Phillips and many others?

Please tell me how selling a cake to a gay couple is accepting their lifestyle?

[Juliet]

I really doubt the bakery will win.

[captainfearnot]

Please tell me how selling a cake to a gay couple is accepting their lifestyle?

As I understand it, Mr. Phillips considers his cakes to be his artistic output, and therefore speech, and the 1st Amendment protects him from compelled speech. In other words he cannot be forced to say something he does not want to say. And he believes that creating a cake for a gay wedding is tantamount to him condoning, if not celebrating, that event. I think the question is at what point does a cake constitute speech.

Mr. Phillips does not condone the celebration of Halloween, and will not make a Halloween cake. Fine, that's his right. But what is a Halloween cake? I think we would all agree that a cake festooned with tiny witches and bats and skeletons and black cats would be considered a Halloween cake. But what about an unadorned cake in neutral colors that could only be considered a Halloween cake by virtue of the fact that it is displayed and served at a Halloween party?

Artists have complete control over the art they choose to create, but they don't get to control how that art is used after they sell it to someone else. If I bought a fancy purple and green cake from Mr. Phillips he could not stop me from displaying it and serving it at my Halloween party. Or my Satanic ritual sacrifice, for that matter. It's mine to do with as I please. So the question is, should he be allowed to refuse to make the cake at all if he knows and disagrees with how it will be used.

The Ben Shapiro piece makes it sound like Mr. Phillips refuses to make cakes that are explicitly gay wedding themed. Like one with two male figurines atop it. If that were the case I would agree. But the facts of the situation are that he refused to make a cake at all. As I understand it they didn't even get as far as talking about what the cake might look like. As soon as he heard the cake would be used for a gay wedding, he refused to do it. That makes it seem a lot more like he is refusing service to people because of who they are, which has widely been considered discriminatory.

[EmmaLee]

Please tell me how selling a cake to a gay couple is accepting their lifestyle?

As I understand it, Mr. Phillips considers his cakes to be his artistic output, and therefore speech, and the 1st Amendment protects him from compelled speech. In other words he cannot be forced to say something he does not want to say. And he believes that creating a cake for a gay wedding is tantamount to him condoning, if not celebrating, that event. I think the question is at what point does a cake constitute speech.
That is correct.

The Ben Shapiro piece makes it sound like Mr. Phillips refuses to make cakes that are explicitly gay wedding themed. Like one with two male figurines atop it. If that were the case I would agree. But the facts of the situation are that he refused to make a cake at all. As I understand it they didn't even get as far as talking about what the cake might look like. As soon as he heard the cake would be used for a gay wedding, he refused to do it. That makes it seem a lot more like he is refusing service to people because of who they are, which has widely been considered discriminatory.
That is not correct. If you read the OP, it was more descriptive. Quote - "The case revolves around a man named Jack Phillips. Jack is a baker. He makes and decorates cakes. He has a simple rule: he’ll sell anyone a cake. Gay, straight, transgender, green. Anyone. But he won’t make a custom cake for every event. As a religious Christian, this means that he sees it as sinful participation to make a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. So he’ll make a cake for a same-sex wedding, but he won’t decorate it as such (no groom-groom wedding toppers, for example). He also refuses to make cakes that push anti-gay messages, anti-American messages, and adult-themed messages."

[EmmaLee]

https://www.thenewamerican.com/reviews/ ... t-and-cake

The Supreme Court and Cake
Written by John F. McManus

Five years have passed since a Colorado baker of cakes refused to create one of his masterpieces for two men who wanted it to celebrate their “marriage.” It’s hard to believe that this incident is now before the U.S. Supreme Court. But it is, and the fact that it has reached such heights indicates how far our nation has descended toward destruction of common sense and the commonly held values that formerly undergirded our nation.

Cake maker Jack Phillips says he has a right to refuse the business of a particular customer whose fundamental intention is not to purchase a decorated cake but to use the transaction to force acceptance of homosexual “marriage.” On religious grounds, he doesn’t approve of “gay marriage,” and his refusal to build a wedding cake for a homosexual duo supposedly violates a portion of the U.S. Constitution banning discrimination. I searched but I couldn’t find the particular part of the Constitution on which this case is built. Legal beagles claim it’s discrimination, and that’s something terribly bad. Half a century ago, discrimination was so highly regarded that the Herbert-Tareyton cigarette company advertised its product as “the cigarette for discriminating people.” And a common assessment of the esteem accorded discrimination back then insisted that the only people who don’t discriminate “are prostitutes and fools.”

Sadly, commonly held attitudes of 50 years ago have been pushed aside in the rush to overturn cultural, religious, and even economic mores. Some would claim this development to be “progress.” But that’s another word whose meaning has been turned upside down.

Shouldn’t Jack Phillips have a right to refuse the business of someone who walks into his store and intends, not so much to buy a cake, but to have the planned transaction force acceptance of something abhorred by Phillips and many others? Why does Phillips have to provide an approved reason for saying “No” to a potential customer he knows has an agenda that far exceeds buying a cake? Isn’t his business his property, even his “castle,” a place where his right to refuse doing business with someone sacrosanct?

A deeper look into this matter shows that the homosexual couple seeking a cake from Phillips planned to have it at their ceremony in New York, not in Colorado. They obviously chose to challenge the Lakewood, Colorado, baker’s distaste for gay marriage. So, the issue isn’t really one of mere refusal to do business with someone. It’s about forcing acceptance of homosexual marriage. By definition, marriage has always been the union of one man and one woman. Homosexual marriage is no more a marriage than labeling something water when it isn’t a combination of hydrogen and oxygen.

It’s no surprise to find a spokesman for the ACLU’s Lesbian, Gay, Bi-sexual and Transgender (LGBT) division taking the side of the supposedly aggrieved cake customers. James Essex of the ACLU claims: “You have freedom to believe and to preach your faith until your actions harm other people.” Does refusal to cooperate with the demands of homosexuals amount to harm? If so, what about possible harm done to a baker who refuses to participate, even in a slight way, in a practice he considers reprehensible, even sinful? Also, what about harming the moral character of this nation?

The Supreme Court will hear Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the fall. The case progressed from rulings at lower levels favoring the claims of the two men who insist that they are victims of unjust discrimination. Phillips’s attorney David Cortman rightly states, “Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government.”

That makes sense, of course. But good sense doesn’t always prevail, especially when so much more than discrimination is at stake. The high court’s willingness to rule in this case about cake signals that there are far more important matters at stake.

Would the same apply to rejecting a black couple, or Muslim couple?

Sure, if he wants to. My guess is that would be bad for business though, and the free-market, i.e. the PUBLIC, would quickly put him out of business - which is how all these things should be decided. The government should not be able to force ANYONE to do with their PRIVATE business what they don't want to do. This is not complicated.

[captainfearnot]

That is not correct. If you read the OP, it was more descriptive. Quote - "The case revolves around a man named Jack Phillips. Jack is a baker. He makes and decorates cakes. He has a simple rule: he’ll sell anyone a cake. Gay, straight, transgender, green. Anyone. But he won’t make a custom cake for every event. As a religious Christian, this means that he sees it as sinful participation to make a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. So he’ll make a cake for a same-sex wedding, but he won’t decorate it as such (no groom-groom wedding toppers, for example). He also refuses to make cakes that push anti-gay messages, anti-American messages, and adult-themed messages."

I understand the point Shapiro is making in the piece quoted in the OP. I'm arguing that his portrayal doesn't match the facts of the case, as I understand them. Several sources indicate that Mr. Phillips' refusal to bake the cake for the couple came at the point when he learned that the cake would be for a gay wedding. There was never any discussion of what the cake would look like.

If you can find a quote from Mr. Phillips that corroborates Shapiro's claim "he’ll make a cake for a same-sex wedding, but he won’t decorate it as such (no groom-groom wedding toppers, for example)" I'd be interested to see it, because everything I've read indicates that he refuses to make any cake for a same-sex wedding.