Colorado baker told to bake that cake

[Blackrook]

Forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding isn't a victory, because now you've made a martyr of him.

 

[JoeB131]

Read it again. It's no doxxing. It is printing physical flyers with the threats, the names and addresses of the threatening parties and the venue that the baker was forced to unwillingly serve.

That's Doxxing. The reason why the couple in Oregon got hit with such a heavy fine was because they had Doxxed the couple who complained about them.

After all if gays wanted to protest the baker, say go to his house, or confront him at a restaurant no one would find the slightest fault with that.

Missing the point. The baker violated the law in not providing the cake, that's why they filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission, that enforces said laws.

 

[JoeB131]

Forcing a Christian baker to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding isn't a victory, because now you've made a martyr of him.

Awesome, when do we get to bring back the Roman Lions?

 

[dblack]

Sorry, man, you get on here ...

You're a lying partisan piece of shit. Stop responding to my posts.

 

[JoeB131]

You're a lying partisan piece of shit. Stop responding to my posts.

Stop saying stupid shit... and grow up and live in the real world.

 

[dblack]

Stop saying stupid shit... and grow up and live in the real world.

You're a lying partisan piece of shit. Stop responding to my posts.

 

[JoeB131]

You're a lying partisan piece of shit. Stop responding to my posts.

Keep it up, and I might start mocking your nonsense in other threads.. But duly noted you have nothing to add.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Nope. Quote it. Never said anything like that.

Why does it matter whether a religion is globally recognized and well documented? Why shouldn't less well known, less documented religions have the same rights? (and for that matter, why shouldn't everyone have the same rights?)

I'm looking for you to recognize the contradiction in your point of view. If the government, in matters of law, must decide which religions are legitimate, and which aren't - it's doing exactly what the First Amendment prohibits: making law respecting the establishment of religion.

To enforce your version of religious freedom, they must. You've already said that only certain religions should get the perk (globally recognized, well documented, etc...) - how is that not government picking and choosing religions for special treatment?

Nope. Quote it. Never said anything like that.

Read your previous posts, and I can’t quote it because I said you were “eluding to it” which means you didn’t say it but your words hint at it.

Why does it matter whether a religion is globally recognized and well documented? Why shouldn't less well known, less documented religions have the same rights? (and for that matter, why shouldn't everyone have the same rights?)

You’re getting bogged down on the definition of an “established religion”. You know what I mean, fine..not “globally recognized”, but known by many people. I don’t understand why you are getting into the weeds of this definition. You know what “established” means. In other words, I’m trying to say that any legitimate religion and not people just making stuff up, like has been suggested before.

As far as why all people shouldn’t have the same rights, we’ll, they all do. A gay person has the right to go to a bakery and get a cake made for a wedding, and the baker has the right to exercise his freedom of religion. If you have a complaint about that, I suggest you ask the framers…

If the government, in matters of law, must decide which religions are legitimate, and which aren't

I never said that…..YOU keep saying that. I keep saying that the government can’t decide what religions are legitimate, that’s forbidden in the cotus…BUT, they, and people in general are capable of recognizing if someone creates a religion out of thin air….as I’m sure you are about to suggest…which is why I kept talking about established religions…or “real”’religions.

To enforce your version of religious freedom, they must. You've already said that only certain religions should get the perk (globally recognized, well documented, etc...) - how is that not government picking and choosing religions for special treatment?

No, I said established religions….which you keep trying to get bogged down in the weeds about. People know what the religions of the world are….that’s what I’m taking about. Not just someone’s waking up one day and saying “hmm, I’m gonna start my own religion today”..

 

[ThisIsMe]

So we should let him break the law because of delusions in his head. Hey, the voices in my head told me to gun down a mall. They'd hold me to account for that, even if I told them the voice in my head was "God".



No, because we are civilized, and we don't use a book of Bronze Age superstitions to govern ourselves. Thankfully.
So when someone tries to quote it to justify why he is discriminating against gays, we need to slap his ass with huge fines until he complies or goes out of business.

So we should let him break the law because of delusions in his head. Hey, the voices in my head told me to gun down a mall. They'd hold me to account for that, even if I told them the voice in my head was "God".

Nobody should break the law…that would be wrong….but, Phillips didn’t break the law, he just exercised one of his cotus rights, that apparently you think shouldn’t exist. What other right do you think shouldn’t exist?

As to the last part of it, why do you lefties go to these extreme scenarios? Phillips didn’t refuse to make the cake because he heard God in his head, but because his religion says it’s a sin.

 

[ThisIsMe]

So we should let him break the law because of delusions in his head. Hey, the voices in my head told me to gun down a mall. They'd hold me to account for that, even if I told them the voice in my head was "God".



No, because we are civilized, and we don't use a book of Bronze Age superstitions to govern ourselves. Thankfully.
So when someone tries to quote it to justify why he is discriminating against gays, we need to slap his ass with huge fines until he complies or goes out of business.

No, because we are civilized, and we don't use a book of Bronze Age superstitions to govern ourselves. Thankfully.
So when someone tries to quote it to justify why he is discriminating against gays, we need to slap his ass with huge fines until he complies or goes out of business.

No, because Christian’s observe the New Testament laws and customs.

Exercising your cotus rights isn’t discrimination. Look, you don’t have to believe, the cotus gives you the right to not observe any religion. Just because you don’t believe doesn’t mean you get to force your will and ideas on people that do (and before you say it, Phillips wasn’t forcing his ideas in anyone, he was just trying to separate himself from actively working to help someone else commit a sin)…

 

[JoeB131]

Nobody should break the law…that would be wrong….but, Phillips didn’t break the law, he just exercised one of his cotus rights, that apparently you think shouldn’t exist. What other right do you think shouldn’t exist?

Isn't a matter of rights. He's totally free to believe in any sky pixies he wants, and if he really, really hates the gays because voices in his head told him to, then he needs to find something else to do for a living. But once he opened a business that is subject to the Public Accommodation laws, he has to comply with the law.

As to the last part of it, why do you lefties go to these extreme scenarios? Phillips didn’t refuse to make the cake because he heard God in his head, but because his religion says it’s a sin.

Yet, oddly the vast majority of Christians don't hate on the gays and discriminate against them. How can this possibly be? Maybe because they've regulated the 'hating gays" part of Christianity along with the "burning witches" and "Stoning your daughter for not being a virgin" part of the bible.

No, because Christian’s observe the New Testament laws and customs.

Do they though? THen why don't we still own slaves? New Testament says slavery is perfectly fine, but amazingly, slavery is no more. God didn't change his mind, we changed ours. And in 50 years, all the churches will be claiming they had nothing to do with the homophobia either.

Exercising your cotus rights isn’t discrimination. Look, you don’t have to believe, the cotus gives you the right to not observe any religion. Just because you don’t believe doesn’t mean you get to force your will and ideas on people that do (and before you say it, Phillips wasn’t forcing his ideas in anyone, he was just trying to separate himself from actively working to help someone else commit a sin)…

Then he should have found something else to do for a living. Maybe even work for someone else who can make the grownup decisions for him.

 

[dblack]

Read your previous posts, and I can’t quote it because I said you were “eluding to it” which means you didn’t say it but your words hint at it.

Well, no. They don't. What you suggested is the exact opposite of what I believe. But special rights for special people is the opposite of that.

You’re getting bogged down on the definition of an “established religion”.

No, I'm making a point - which seems to be "eluding" you. And, once again, that point is that if we going to give special perks to religion, someone, someone in government, must decide with religions are legit and which aren't. And that straight up violates the First.

As far as why all people shouldn’t have the same rights, we’ll, they all do. A gay person has the right to go to a bakery and get a cake made for a wedding ...

No. They don't. That's not a right, despite what liberals claim.

I never said that…..YOU keep saying that.

Exactly. Because that's the way it is. See above.

I keep saying that the government can’t decide what religions are legitimate, that’s forbidden in the cotus…BUT, they, and people in general are capable of recognizing if someone creates a religion out of thin air….as I’m sure you are about to suggest…which is why I kept talking about established religions…or “real”’religions.

Why is it invalid to create a religion out of thin air? Oh, and you're utterly contradicting yourself, in the same paragraph.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Isn't a matter of rights. He's totally free to believe in any sky pixies he wants, and if he really, really hates the gays because voices in his head told him to, then he needs to find something else to do for a living. But once he opened a business that is subject to the Public Accommodation laws, he has to comply with the law.



Yet, oddly the vast majority of Christians don't hate on the gays and discriminate against them. How can this possibly be? Maybe because they've regulated the 'hating gays" part of Christianity along with the "burning witches" and "Stoning your daughter for not being a virgin" part of the bible.


Do they though? THen why don't we still own slaves? New Testament says slavery is perfectly fine, but amazingly, slavery is no more. God didn't change his mind, we changed ours. And in 50 years, all the churches will be claiming they had nothing to do with the homophobia either.



Then he should have found something else to do for a living. Maybe even work for someone else who can make the grownup decisions for him.

Isn't a matter of rights. He's totally free to believe in any sky pixies he wants, and if he really, really hates the gays because voices in his head told him to, then he needs to find something else to do for a living. But once he opened a business that is subject to the Public Accommodation laws, he has to comply with the law.

Ok, I get it, religious protections don’t mean anything to you. In your eyes, religious freedom means practicing your religion behind closed doors and that in the world, you are bound to do the will of everyone else, regardless of your own observations.

And again, you keep using the word “hate”, yet you’ve not shown any evidence of hate.

Yet, oddly the vast majority of Christians don't hate on the gays and discriminate against them. How can this possibly be? Maybe because they've regulated the 'hating gays" part of Christianity along with the "burning witches" and "Stoning your daughter for not being a virgin" part of the bible.

I don’t know why some people observe the practices they do or don’t, but, because one person does and another does not doesn’t make them wrong or right, its just that some follow their religion closely, or loosely. Some people believe it’s ok to drink, some believe it’s not. Some people believe in women wearing pants, some do not.

People’s personal observances are irrelevant, what matters to Christian religion is, what does the Bible teach?

Do they though? THen why don't we still own slaves? New Testament says slavery is perfectly fine, but amazingly, slavery is no more. God didn't change his mind, we changed ours. And in 50 years, all the churches will be claiming they had nothing to do with the homophobia either.

As far as I’m aware, the Bible never teaches that people should own slaves. So, it isn’t relevant to the topic.

So, again, we’re going down the same road again. We’ve hashed this out for a few weeks now and I neither of us are gaining any ground. We both believe what we believe. I don’t see any point in going over it again and again, do you?

 

[ThisIsMe]

Well, no. They don't. What you suggested is the exact opposite of what I believe. But special rights for special people is the opposite of that.

No, I'm making a point - which seems to be "eluding" you. And, once again, that point is that if we going to give special perks to religion, someone, someone in government, must decide with religions are legit and which aren't. And that straight up violates the First.

No. They don't. That's not a right, despite what liberals claim.

Exactly. Because that's the way it is. See above.

Why is it invalid to create a religion out of thin air? Oh, and you're utterly contradicting yourself, in the same paragraph.

Why do you feel that government has to decide what religions are legit and which aren’t? Again, the religions of the world have been well established, most of them have been around for thousands of years. Government doesn’t have the right to say what are legit and which aren’t. That’s not their job.

You can’t make a religion up out of thin air because what historic information would it be based on? Again, the religions of the world are already established, so unless you discover a new set of documents or anything that points to a religion, making one up out of thin air just so you can make up your own protections doesnt fly. If that were the case, everyone would just have their own religion for whatever situation they want.

I don’t understand the point you’re making with the definition of “established”. Perhaps you can explain it further.

 

[hadit]

Absolutely! Profit motive.

Customer: I want a cake to celebrate my transition.

Baker: Transition cakes can cost me my soul, so the price is 2.5 Billion. And I want half down.

Problem solved.

Even easier:

Customer: I'm gay and I want you to bake a cake celebrating my wedding to my gay partner.

Baker: Sure, no problem. As you can see by the sign on the door, I prominently display a Bible verse on every specialty cake I bake, verse chosen by me.

Problem solved.

 

[Chillicothe]

As you can see by the sign on the door, I prominently display a Bible verse on every specialty cake I bake, verse chosen by me.

I could be convinced that poster 'hadit' is a very fine baker, who puts out a really excellent product; however.....................however, his marketing skills suck. Really really suck.

IMHO

 

[hadit]

I could be convinced that poster 'hadit' is a very fine baker, who puts out a really excellent product; however.....................however, his marketing skills suck. Really really suck.

IMHO

It's one way around the problem. I didn't say it was great marketing, but if the baker wanted to create a niche product, that would be one way to do it. And I find it interesting that you think I am a baker. Where did I ever indicate that?

 

[JoeB131]

Ok, I get it, religious protections don’t mean anything to you. In your eyes, religious freedom means practicing your religion behind closed doors and that in the world, you are bound to do the will of everyone else, regardless of your own observations.

Yes, it's called living in a civilized society. Thank goodness for that, because left to your own devices, you God-botherers would be killing each other over whether or not wafers really turn into Jesus or not. (Transubstantiation).

I don’t know why some people observe the practices they do or don’t, but, because one person does and another does not doesn’t make them wrong or right, its just that some follow their religion closely, or loosely. Some people believe it’s ok to drink, some believe it’s not. Some people believe in women wearing pants, some do not.

Again, that's awesome. That's why we have separation of Church and State so we aren't fighting over how many sacraments there are or whether divorce is okay because we got a New King last week and he wants to change all the prayer books. This is what the Founders were trying to avoid in your beloved first Amendment.

The saving of the soul is the province of Church. The regulation of business is the province of State.

As far as I’m aware, the Bible never teaches that people should own slaves. So, it isn’t relevant to the topic.

I'll just limit myself to the New Testament, as the OT is full of slavery rules.

The New Testament's epistles approve of slavery and command slaves to obey their masters.

Art thou called being a servant? care not for it: but if thou mayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman: likewise also he that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. 1 Corinthians 7:21-22
Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ. Ephesians 6:5
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Colossians 3:22
Masters, give unto your servants that which is just and equal; knowing that ye also have a Master in heaven. Colossians 4:1
Let as many servants as are under the yoke count their masters worthy of all honor, that the name of God and his doctrine be not blasphemed. And they that have believing masters, let them not despise them, because they are brethren; but rather do them service, because they are faithful and beloved, partakers of the benefit. These things teach and exhort. If any man teach otherwise ... he is proud, knowing nothing.... From such withdraw thyself. 1 Timothy 6:1-5
Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eyeservice, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God. Titus 2:9-10
Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. 1 Peter 2:18

So when a bunch of racist Douchenoodles started a civil war to preserve slavery, they found plenty of Solace in the Bible.

Today, all the Churches like to pretend they had nothing to do with that. Just like they will in 50 years on the Homophobia.

So, again, we’re going down the same road again. We’ve hashed this out for a few weeks now and I neither of us are gaining any ground. We both believe what we believe. I don’t see any point in going over it again and again, do you?

You mean will you deliberately remain dense and keep using religious "freedom" to rationalize your homophobia and bigotry.

 

[ThisIsMe]

Yes, it's called living in a civilized society. Thank goodness for that, because left to your own devices, you God-botherers would be killing each other over whether or not wafers really turn into Jesus or not. (Transubstantiation).



Again, that's awesome. That's why we have separation of Church and State so we aren't fighting over how many sacraments there are or whether divorce is okay because we got a New King last week and he wants to change all the prayer books. This is what the Founders were trying to avoid in your beloved first Amendment.

The saving of the soul is the province of Church. The regulation of business is the province of State.


I'll just limit myself to the New Testament, as the OT is full of slavery rules.

The New Testament's epistles approve of slavery and command slaves to obey their masters.

So when a bunch of racist Douchenoodles started a civil war to preserve slavery, they found plenty of Solace in the Bible.

Today, all the Churches like to pretend they had nothing to do with that. Just like they will in 50 years on the Homophobia.


You mean will you deliberately remain dense and keep using religious "freedom" to rationalize your homophobia and bigotry.

Yes, it's called living in a civilized society. Thank goodness for that, because left to your own devices, you God-botherers would be killing each other over whether or not wafers really turn into Jesus or not. (Transubstantiation).

By the same token, why shouldn’t gay people practice their rights behind closed doors then? Their rights are no more important than religious rights.

Again, that's awesome. That's why we have separation of Church and State so we aren't fighting over how many sacraments there are or whether divorce is okay because we got a New King last week and he wants to change all the prayer books. This is what the Founders were trying to avoid in your beloved first Amendment.

Again, separation of church and state is not in the constitution. As I’ve explained, from reading the letter that phrase is based on, it was about protecting churches from states creating a state religion.

I'll just limit myself to the New Testament, as the OT is full of slavery rules.

The New Testament's epistles approve of slavery and command slaves to obey their masters.

So when a bunch of racist Douchenoodles started a civil war to preserve slavery, they found plenty of Solace in the Bible.

Today, all the Churches like to pretend they had nothing to do with that. Just like they will in 50 years on the Homophobia.

Again, the Bible talks about slavery, but it never teaches that you have to own slaves. I.e. it’s not part of the religious observances required, it’s not relevant to this conversation.

You mean will you deliberately remain dense and keep using religious "freedom" to rationalize your homophobia and bigotry.

No, I will just defend people’s right to the free exercise of religion as cotus says you can. You have not proven there was any hate on the part of Phillips for what he did, you are just assuming there is because he wouldn’t make them a cake, so, you just have to assume he did that because of some hatred towards gay people. There is no evidence of that. Again, I’ve asked you several times to show me his social media posts deriding gay people or attacking them.

 

[JoeB131]

By the same token, why shouldn’t gay people practice their rights behind closed doors then? Their rights are no more important than religious rights.

Well, um... they kind of do. If they have the nasty butt sex in public, they'll be arrested for lewd behavior.

Again, separation of church and state is not in the constitution. As I’ve explained, from reading the letter that phrase is based on, it was about protecting churches from states creating a state religion.

It was also about protecting people from a state religion. Good thing, too, because the last thing we wanted is what they had in England for centuries, of a new prayer book every time you got a new monarch.

Oh, the first amendment says Congress shall make no law regarding an establishment of religion. Separation of Church and State.

Again, the Bible talks about slavery, but it never teaches that you have to own slaves. I.e. it’s not part of the religious observances required, it’s not relevant to this conversation.

Okay, I wasn't going to do this... but let's look at the OLD Testament on slavery. God loves him some slavery... until he didn't.

Bible stories that show God's approval of slavery:

After the flood, the "just and righteous" Noah (Genesis 6:9, 7:1) got drunk, and lay around naked in his tent. When his son, Ham, saw his father in this condition, Noah cursed not Ham, but Ham's son, Canaan, and all of Canaan's descendants, saying, "A servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren." This is one of many Bible passages that have been used to justify slavery.
And he [Noah] said, Cursed be Canaan; a servant of servants shall he be unto his brethren. And he said, Blessed be the LORD God of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. God shall enlarge Japheth, and he shall dwell in the tents of Shem; and Canaan shall be his servant. Genesis 9:25-27

God blessed Abraham by giving him lots of slaves ("servants" in the KJV), insisting that all the male slaves be circumscised.

And the LORD hath blessed my master [Abraham] greatly; and he is become great: and he hath given him flocks, and herds, and silver, and gold, and menservants, and maidservants, and camels, and asses. Genesis 24:35
And he that is eight days old shall be circumcised among you, every man child in your generations, he that is born in the house, or bought with money of any stranger, which is not of thy seed. He that is born in thy house, and he that is bought with thy money, must needs be circumcised. Genesis 17:12-13

When Sarah's slave Hagar flees from Sarah who is mistreating her (with Abraham's blessing), God sends an angel to tell her to go back to her abusive owner.

Abram said unto Sarai, Behold, thy maid is in thine hand; do to her as it pleaseth thee. And when Sarai dealt hardly with her, she fled from her face. ... And he said, Hagar, Sarai's maid, whence camest thou? and whither wilt thou go? And she said, I flee from the face of my mistress Sarai. And the angel of the LORD said unto her, Return to thy mistress, and submit thyself under her. hands. Genesis 16:8-9

Abraham's favorite son Isaac was also a proud slave owner. You can tell how great he was by how many slaves he owned.

Then Isaac sowed in that land, and received in the same year an hundredfold: and the LORD blessed him. And the man waxed great, and went forward, and grew until he became very great: For he had possession of flocks, and possession of herds, and great store of servants. Genesis 26:12-14

God cursed the Gibeonites to be slaves of the Jews forever.

Now therefore ye are cursed, and there shall none of you be freed from being bondmen, and hewers of wood and drawers of water for the house of my God. ... And Joshua made them that day hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation, and for the altar of the LORD, even unto this day. Joshua 9:23-27

Rules for slave owners from the Hebrew Scriptures:

Don't let any of your uncircumcised slaves eat the Passover meal.

But every man's servant that is bought for money, when thou hast circumcised him, then shall he eat thereof. Exodus 12:44

Don't covet your neighbor's slaves. (It's one of the the Ten Commandments.)

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's. Exodus 20:17
Neither shalt thou desire thy neighbour's wife, neither shalt thou covet thy neighbour's house, his field, or his manservant, or his maidservant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbour's. Deuteronomy 5:21

When buying slaves, be sure to follow God's instructions. Espeically if you are a priest, buying a poor brother, or selling your daughter. Although special rules apply for Hebrew slaves, it's always OK to buy foreigners, who can be inherited from one generation to another forever.

If thou buy a Hebrew servant.... Exodus 21:2
And if thy brother, an Hebrew man, or an Hebrew woman be sold unto thee.... Deuteronomy 15:12
If the priest buy any soul with his money.... Leviticus 22:11
And if thy brother that dwelleth by thee be waxen poor, and be sold unto thee.... Leviticus 25:39
And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant.... Exodus 21:7
Thy bond-men and thy bond-maids which thou shalt have, shall be of the heathen that are round about you: of them shall ye buy bond-men and bond-maids. Moreover, of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy, and of their families that are with you, which they begat in your land. And they shall be your possession. And ye shall take them as an inheritance for your children after you, to inherit them for a possession, they shall be your bond-man forever. Leviticus 25:44-46

But don't get caught stealing a slave, or you'll be put to death.

He that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:16
If a man be found stealing any of his brethren of the children of Israel, and maketh merchandise of him, or selleth him; then that thief shall die. Deuteronomy 24:7

It's OK with God if you slowly beat your slaves to death. After all, they are your money. Just make sure that they survive at least a day or two after the beating. But try not to knock out their teeth or eyes. Otherwise you may have to set them free.

If a man smite his servant or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand, he shall be surely punished; notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished, for he is his money. Exodus 21:20-21
And if a man smite the eye of his servant, or the eye of his maid, that it perish; he shall let him go free for his eye's sake. And if he smite out his manservant's tooth, or his maidservant's tooth; he shall let him go free for his tooth's sake. Exodus 21:26-27

If your ox gores ("pushes" in the KJV) someone's slave, pay the slave owner thirty shekels of silver.

If the ox shall push a manservant or a maidservant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver. Exodus 21:32

Sell poor thiefs as slaves to pay for their theft.

If a thief ... have nothing, then he shall be sold for his theft. Exodus 22:2-3

If a man has sex with an engaged slave woman, scourge the woman, but don't punish the man, because she was a slave.

And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. Leviticus 19:20

Rules for obtaining slaves during wartime.

When thou comest nigh unto a city to fight against it, then proclaim peace unto it. And it shall be, if it make thee answer of peace, and open unto thee, then it shall be, that all the people that is found therein shall be tributaries unto thee, and they shall serve thee. Deuteronomy 20:10-11
But the women, and the little ones, and the cattle, and all that is in the city, even all the spoil thereof, shalt thou take unto thyself. Deuteronomy 20:14

No, I will just defend people’s right to the free exercise of religion as cotus says you can. You have not proven there was any hate on the part of Phillips for what he did, you are just assuming there is because he wouldn’t make them a cake, so, you just have to assume he did that because of some hatred towards gay people. There is no evidence of that. Again, I’ve asked you several times to show me his social media posts deriding gay people or attacking them.

I don't have to prove the homophobic little twat "hates" anyone.

There's a law.
He broke it.
Done.