How many non virgins wanted something like that stated on their wedding cake? About their chastity? None? Ok, then if one ever did, which I doubt would ever happen, what do you suppose this bakery would say? No? I think so.
dc
How many non virgins wanted something like that stated on their wedding cake? About their chastity? None? Ok, then if one ever did, which I doubt would ever happen, what do you suppose this bakery would say? No? I think so.
Post by captainfearnot »
What did David Mullins and Charlie Craig want stated on their wedding cake?
EmmaLee wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 8:34 pmSure, 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.Arenera wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 7:07 pmWould the same apply to rejecting a black couple, or Muslim couple?EmmaLee wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 5:28 pm 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.
Post by captainfearnot »
Who is stating this? I'm seeing in several sources that the couple was to be married in Massachusetts (where gay marriage was legal in 2012) and that the cake was for a reception to be held in Denver.
Vision wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 3:46 pmAlarisalaris wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 3:27 pmIf 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.
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 cake business owners already said they SELL cakes to anyone. They just refuse to decorate a cake advocating a same-sex marriage. If everyone would please read ALL the info about this case they would understand better what is at stake.Arenera wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 7:07 pmWould the same apply to rejecting a black couple, or Muslim couple?EmmaLee wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 5:28 pm 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.
Post by captainfearnot »
Please enlighten us as to what gay themed decorations Mullins and Craig requested on the cake. Mr. Mullins will sell non-wedding cakes to anyone but he will not sell wedding cakes to gays, if he understands the cake is to be used to celebrate a gay wedding.natasha wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 9:16 am As I understand all the info above, it was not about just selling a cake. The owners said they sell cakes to anyone. What they objected to because of their religious beliefs is DECORATING it as a gay wedding. They also stated that they would not bake a cake and decorate it with anything anti-gay on it. This is a very important case that will determine the future for many religious people and organizations.
Post by captainfearnot »
I agree. Please read Mr. Phillips' petition to the Supreme Court. It says nothing about the decoration or design of the cake in question. His objection to providing the cake rests entirely on the purpose for which the case would be used, not on its design or decoration.
Post by captainfearnot »
What facts of the case are being misrepresented, which this conservative pundit aims to clarify?
I agree, we should be focusing on the facts of the case, not hypotheticals.So why do so many on the left compare him to segregationists? Why do they use hypotheticals that have nothing to do with the facts of this case?
So, did Mullins and Craig request a rainbow colored cake, or a cake adorned with rainbow symbols? Or is French using a hypothetical which has nothing to do with the facts of the case? Once again, conservative pundits cannot resist suggesting that Phillips is being compelled to craft an explicitly gay-themed work of art because that would be a slam dunk case.There is a substantial difference between a rainbow symbol at an event celebrating a same-sex wedding and a corned-beef sandwich.
And I agree with him 100% - you don't - not sure what point there is in arguing back and forth with you and others who don't get it.captainfearnot wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 11:29 am He argues repeatedly that he should not be compelled to create a wedding cake that will be used to celebrate a gay wedding.
Post by LightisTruth111 »
Post by captainfearnot »
The point is that the conservative punditry keeps misrepresenting the facts of the case, and I feel like there is value in pointing out that misrepresentation every time it is repeated. I agree that it doesn't do any good to state our opinions on the legal question over and over, but it's clear to me that there is still widespread misunderstanding over what the facts are, and that misunderstanding is being intentionally promulgated by the punditry.EmmaLee wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 11:32 amAnd I agree with him 100% - you don't - not sure what point there is in arguing back and forth with you and others who don't get it.captainfearnot wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 11:29 am He argues repeatedly that he should not be compelled to create a wedding cake that will be used to celebrate a gay wedding.
A blatantly false statement. The very first paragraph in the petition states just the opposite of what you claim - "Jack Phillips is a cake artist. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that he engaged in sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) when he declined to design and create a custom cake honoring a same-sex marriage because doing so conflicts with his sincerely held religious beliefs."captainfearnot wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 10:32 amI agree. Please read Mr. Phillips' petition to the Supreme Court. It says nothing about the decoration or design of the cake in question. His objection to providing the cake rests entirely on the purpose for which the case would be used, not on its design or decoration.
captainfearnot wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 12:02 pmThe point is that the conservative punditry keeps misrepresenting the facts of the case, and I feel like there is value in pointing out that misrepresentation every time it is repeated.EmmaLee wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 11:32 amAnd I agree with him 100% - you don't - not sure what point there is in arguing back and forth with you and others who don't get it.captainfearnot wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 11:29 am He argues repeatedly that he should not be compelled to create a wedding cake that will be used to celebrate a gay wedding.
And what I'm saying - and I pointed it out very clearly in my previous comment, when I quoted the legal brief word-for-word - is that they are NOT misrepresenting the facts of the case at all. You are.
I agree that it doesn't do any good to state our opinions on the legal question over and over, but it's clear to me that there is still widespread misunderstanding over what the facts are, and that misunderstanding is being intentionally promulgated by the punditry.
In the piece quoted in the OP, Ben Shapiro writes, "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)." That is simply incorrect. Jack Phillips has consistently refused to make any wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, not just cakes that are explicitly gay wedding themed.
That is simply not true. Why do you keep repeating this?? Did YOU even read the legal brief you linked to? Because in the very first paragraph it states that the gay couple wanted him to make a CUSTOM cake to celebrate their homosexual wedding - that means they were OBVIOUSLY wanting him to promote same-sex marriage, which is what Phillips has said all along he would not do. If a gay couple asked him to bake a cake for their wedding, and nothing on the cake would indicate that it was for a same-sex wedding, then yes, he would have made the cake. You are telling a blatant untruth here.
I think everyone would agree that this image depicts a wedding cake:
I think it's also clear that this image does not depict a "gay" wedding cake or a "straight" wedding cake. It's just a wedding cake, and could be used to celebrate either a gay or straight wedding.
Jack Phillips has made it abundantly clear that he would design such a cake for a straight wedding but not a gay one.
Show me, with a link to Phillips own words, where he has ever said that.
He is claiming the right to artistic expression based on the event his art is intended to celebrate, not the content of the art itself. The end result of his artistic license is that he would sell this cake to a straight couple but not a gay one, which looks a lot like discrimination, which is why this is an issue.
Never minding that the socialists in our culture have bastardized the word "discrimination" to their own corrupt, anti-Christ agenda (Christ was VERY discriminating), this is again, BLATANTLY FALSE. This is your opinion and nothing more.
Let's disagree on whether he should be legally compelled to sell wedding cakes to gay couples to celebrate gay weddings. I actually do think it's an interesting legal question, whether artists can be compelled to create art that they believe will be used for a purpose they do not agree with, even if they would voluntarily create the exact same art for another purpose they do agree with.
But let's not pretend that the issue is whether a baker can be compelled to create explicitly gay-themed wedding cakes, as most conservative pundits seem intent to do. That's not an interesting legal question at all—the answer is obviously no.
That is EXACTLY the issue, and it's really a shame that you cannot see it. Or maybe you just didn't read/comprehend the legal document you, yourself, linked to?
Post by captainfearnot »
Honestly, I can see how you would read it that way. But the implication is that had the couple asked for a different design—presumably, one that did not celebrate and honor same-sex marriage—Mr. Phillips would have consented to creating the cake. But the fact of the matter is that Mr. Phillips has consistently refused to design any cake for same-sex weddings because he defines any cake identifiable as a wedding cake, used to celebrate a same-sex wedding, as honoring and celebrating that union, regardless of the actual content of the design. In order to argue otherwise you would need to demonstrate that he has in fact designed cakes for same-sex weddings that he did not consider to be honoring and celebrating the union. In fact he has never done so, and has repeatedly indicated that he never would.EmmaLee wrote: ↑December 5th, 2017, 12:12 pm A blatantly false statement. The very first paragraph in the petition states just the opposite of what you claim - "Jack Phillips is a cake artist. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that he engaged in sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) when he declined to design and create a custom cake honoring a same-sex marriage because doing so conflicts with his sincerely held religious beliefs."
It does not list the specifics (two 'grooms' for a cake topper, rainbows, two male gender symbols entwined, or any of dozens of other symbols homosexuals may use to promote their agenda), but the specifics don't matter. What matters is this gay couple asked him to "design and create a CUSTOM cake HONORING A SAME-SEX MARRIAGE." Therefore, simple logic dictates that the gay couple wanted him to... design and create a custom cake honoring same-sex marriage - regardless of what those specific things might have been - that is right there, in plain English, in the legal petition. In other words, they asked him to promote same-sex marriage by creating a custom cake THAT WOULD HAVE PROMOTED SAME-SEX MARRIAGE for their wedding - and he refused to because his Christian faith forbears him from promoting sin.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/ ... 917631001/Here's why I can’t custom-design cakes for same-sex weddings
by Jack Phillips
December 4, 2017
What I didn’t say was that I wouldn’t sell them a cake.
I’m happy to sell a cake to anyone, whatever his or her sexual identity. People should be free to make their own moral choices. I don’t have to agree with them.
But I am responsible for my own choices. And it was that responsibility that led me to decline when two gentlemen came into my shop and invited me to create a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony.
Designing a wedding cake is a very different thing from, say, baking a brownie. When people commission such a cake, they’re requesting something that’s designed to express something about the event and about the couple.
What I design is not just a tower of flour and sugar, but a message tailored to a specific couple and a specific event — a message telling all who see it that this event is a wedding and that it is an occasion for celebration.
In this case, I couldn’t. What a cake celebrating this event would communicate was a message that contradicts my deepest religious convictions, and as an artist, that’s just not something I’m able to do, so I politely declined.
But this wasn’t just a business decision. More than anything else, it was a reflection of my commitment to my faith. My religious convictions on this are grounded in the biblical teaching that God designed marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Obviously, not everyone shares those convictions. I don’t expect them to. Each of us makes our own choices; each of us decides how closely we will hold to, defend and live out those choices.
The two men who came into my shop that day were living out their beliefs. All I did was attempt to live out mine. I respect their right to choose and hoped they would respect mine.
They did not. And, considering all of the hate mail, obscene calls and death threats my family has received since I was sued, a lot of other people don’t see tolerance as a two-way street, either.
But the Constitution does. The First Amendment defends my right to create custom cake art that is consistent with my faith, while declining requests that ask me to celebrate events or messages that conflict with my faith. As a cake artist, I can live out my faith in my day-to-day life, and make that faith the basis for my creative decisions.
We live in a big, diverse nation. We don’t all have to agree on religion. We don’t have to agree on questions of sexual morality. We don’t even have to agree on the meaning of marriage.
What we should be able to agree on is our mutual freedom, as Americans, to live out the ideals that are most important to us.
Just as I shouldn’t be able to use the law to force others to design something that promotes my beliefs, others shouldn’t be able to force me to design a cake that celebrates theirs.
That, for me and those at Alliance Defending Freedom who are defending me, is what this case is about. I hope the U.S. Supreme Court affirms that basic freedom.
And if those who oppose me would grant me a certain measure of respect — not as someone they agree with, but as a fellow citizen free to stand by my own moral choices, well … that would be icing on the cake.
Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo. Oral arguments for Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission will be heard Tuesday.
Again you're missing the central issue. Whether they shouldn't or shouldn't have baked a cake for a gay wedding really isn't the issue here at all. The central issue is whether the government has any business forcing anyone to bake a cake. This is called fascism. The nationalist socialist party a.k.a Nazis modeled their government over a combination of socialism and nationalism. The state takes control, socialism, and uses its power to force a nationalistic dogma upon its people.Vision wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 7:16 pmEmmaLee wrote: ↑December 4th, 2017, 5:28 pm 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?
Post by captainfearnot »
I posted his editorial before I saw this, but just to be clear:
He specifies that the message he objects to communicating is "this event is a wedding" and "an occasion for celebration"—a message which is conveyed by any wedding cake. And he says that he cannot convey that message when the wedding in question is a gay one."Jack Phillips" wrote:What I design is not just a tower of flour and sugar, but a message tailored to a specific couple and a specific event — a message telling all who see it that this event is a wedding and that it is an occasion for celebration.
In this case, I couldn’t. What a cake celebrating this event would communicate was a message that contradicts my deepest religious convictions, and as an artist, that’s just not something I’m able to do, so I politely declined.
LDSFreedomForum.com and its admin / moderators do not necessarily agree with all content posted by users of this forum.
The views and content on this site reflect only the opinions and teachings of the authors of the respective content contained herein.