Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
"
Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips can continue his lawsuit against the state, accusing them of anti-religious bias against him for refusing to make cakes that support transgender identity and gay marriage, a federal court has ruled.
Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado issued an order last Friday allowing Phillips’ lawsuit against Colorado and its Civil Rights Commission to continue.
In his order, Judge Daniel did grant the Civil Rights Division Director Aubrey Elenis’ motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims against them for compensatory, punitive and nominal damages, and the motion to dismiss Phillips’ claims for prospective relief against Governor John Hickenlooper.
However, Daniel denied the motion to dismiss the other aspects of Phillips’ litigation, among them being his claim of having the standing to sue the defendants and Attorney General Cynthia Coffman’s motion to dismiss the claims against her."
Court allows Christian baker Jack Phillips to sue Colorado for anti-religious hostility
Let's see what happens
The Democrats are anti-Christian Bigots.
Thankfully the Baker is exercising his 1st amendment rights.
Thing about christians they can't just turn off when they are christians and when they are at work. They are either always christians or not at all.He didn't lose his right to freedom of religion by becoming a baker.
No, those are two different things.
He totally free to go to his church and believe any backward ass bronze age superstitions he wants.
But when he's on the clock, he has to do his job, just like the rest of us do.
Yes. The Court already found that a person’s moral convictions cannot be required to be suspended as a condition of entering the marketplace. And it will further clarify this to mean participation or promotion of behaviors, ideals or rituals fundamentally opposed to those moral convictions.Thing about christians they can't just turn off when they are christians and when they are at work. They are either always christians or not at all.
Thing about christians they can't just turn off when they are christians and when they are at work. They are either always christians or not at all.
Yes. The Court already found that a person’s moral convictions cannot be required to be suspended as a condition of entering the marketplace. And it will further clarify this to mean participation or promotion of behaviors, ideals or rituals fundamentally opposed to those moral convictions.
....it just found that the Commission shouldn't have demeaned his Superstitions when making it's decision... Stick to the law clearly next time without the snark, they'll be fine.
Again, once you say it's okay to discriminate against gays, you can discriminate against blacks, Jews, Mormons or anyone else you feel like. Not a can of worms the court will want to open.
It doesn’t. And even Sotomayor knows it.Show me where general applicability is in the constitution, and specifically, where it overrides the 1st amendment.
Why does selling something automatically result in a person losing their 1st amendment rights?
HE wants his 15 minutes of fame? Oh, yeah, this was all HIS idea.
I thought you leftists got all outraged over blaming the victim. Yet another time when you out yourself as a lying hypocrite.
But he was not the victim. You are all wet and are the hypocrite here.. It all was HIS idea. Nobody else's. He is just another of those cheap little showboaters. I saw his advertisements. You cult crazies are all the same.
The definition of hypocrite is NOT "has a different viewpoint than Lice". Nor was it "all his idea". Did he go to these people's houses, knock on the door, and say, "You can't buy cakes at my bakery"? No. THEY sought HIM out, and they did it primarily because they knew he'd turn them down and they'd get to drag him to court and attempt to destroy his business. THAT is how he's the victim.
YOU are just another of those cheap little PC bullies. "I'm a victim because you refuse to give me my way!" You tyrants are all the same.
I saw his advertising. And I don't think that you know why the customers who were discriminated against ever went there in the first place. This sounds like a story that is circulated in your freak cult. No one is so telepathic that they know that they will run into a freak.
Actually, Mr. Phillips is pretty well-known in Lakewood for not doing a number of things because of his faith; for example, he also will not do any sort of Halloween-themed decorations on anything, and he doesn't do designs for bachelor parties. Whatever you want to tell yourself about "Well, he didn't put an "Anti-Gay" banner over his door, so it was a secret!" Mullins and Craig knew before they asked that he was going to turn them down. He's never made a secret of his personal limits.
This sounds like a lie made up in YOUR freak cult to justify being a bully and a tyrant.
I don't believe it., particularly since your freak cult seems to make up your so-called "religion" according to whimsy. This jerk knows exactly what the law requires. The onus is not on the customers to anticipate the propretor's whims. States have set procedures for dealing with bias complaints.
Are you ready to accommodate everyone else's whims? Do you like chaos that much?
Again, laws that violate the Constitution are not valid.
Free exercise is a constitutional right, and commerce rights do not automatically overrule free exercise.
No one is stopping him from excercising his bronze age superstitions...
He just can't break other laws in the process.
If he doesn't want to serve gays, there's a simple enough solution.
Find something else to do for a living.
Again, the laws are invalid if they violate the constitution, and "bake or else" violates the constitution.
The simplest solution is for the gay people in question to find another baker for their wedding. but that doesn't ruin someone you hate, so your shriveled old cock won't get excited over it.
Laws "of general applicability" do not violate the constitution. This jerk is running a business that advertises, and he violated his business' own advertising. The "simplest solution" is not to violate the law.
The discriminated-against customer has no obligation to just slink away. This couple did nothing wrong in filing a discrimination complaint as the bakery committed the offense charged. Stop pretending that it is the customer who has the responsibility.
Again, laws that violate the Constitution are not valid.
Free exercise is a constitutional right, and commerce rights do not automatically overrule free exercise.
No one is stopping him from excercising his bronze age superstitions...
He just can't break other laws in the process.
If he doesn't want to serve gays, there's a simple enough solution.
Find something else to do for a living.
Again, the laws are invalid if they violate the constitution, and "bake or else" violates the constitution.
The simplest solution is for the gay people in question to find another baker for their wedding. but that doesn't ruin someone you hate, so your shriveled old cock won't get excited over it.
Laws "of general applicability" do not violate the constitution. This jerk is running a business that advertises, and he violated his business' own advertising. The "simplest solution" is not to violate the law.
The discriminated-against customer has no obligation to just slink away. This couple did nothing wrong in filing a discrimination complaint as the bakery committed the offense charged. Stop pretending that it is the customer who has the responsibility.
Show me where general applicability is in the constitution, and specifically, where it overrides the 1st amendment.
Why does selling something automatically result in a person losing their 1st amendment rights?
Google Employment Division v. Smith, U.S. Supreme Court, as I have difficulty using an android device. Your late lover-boy Scalia wrote the majority opinion. There is a long string of Supreme Court decisions on this issue.
I don't know why you are so eager to accommodate the myriad of beliefs of all the adults in our population of 325 million.
You are narrow minded. Not all art ends up in a museum.
Um, no, it isn't... but it also doesn't get eaten...
The problem isn't baking the cake. He'd bake the cake. He'd sell them a cake. What he won't do is put a pro Gay theme decoration on the cake.
then he needs to close down his bakery so he doesn't have to deal with icky gays...
But until then, they are entitled to the same services everyone else gets.
You keep ignoring the point that I have never said point of sale items are an issue when it comes to 1st amendment rights.
No, guy, your sad attempts to find a way to allow just this bigotry but still try to ban others so you can feel good about yourself is what is hilarious.
Show me where general applicability is in the constitution, and specifically, where it overrides the 1st amendment.
Why does selling something automatically result in a person losing their 1st amendment rights?
They have first amendment rights.
Their business does not. Their business has to comply with all the laws that the rest of us have to follow.
They have first amendment rights.
Their business does not. Their business has to comply with all the laws that the rest of us have to follow.
Show me where in the constitution it says a person loses their rights just because they are selling something.
The Ruling contained rationale that a man or woman can’t be punished for carrying their convictions into the marketplace.
The comments about Colorado’s snark were a warning about what I just said. The Court was indicating how it would Rule in the future if Colorado or any other state decided to punish or demean a merchant for his 1st Amendment rights while in business.
There is no can of worms between those categories you mentioned. Static things like race or gender will be sifted away fro behaviors, ideals or rituals. Blacks are born that way = protected. Jews, fags, trannies, drug addicts, Christians, Muslims none can demand others play along with their ideology, rituals or behaviors.
Show me where in the constitution it says a person loses their rights just because they are selling something.
He can’t. Hence why he isn’t answering. He knows the Court already ruled in a this baker’s case that deserting his faith can’t be a requirement to enter the marketplace with his talents & skills.
He & his militant lgbt activists know what’s coming & they’re panicky. You can tell by Joe/sparky’s liberal use of ad hominem on me a few pages back when I kept pressing the same questions you are.
Serve, yes. Decorate a cake a specific way with specific artwork, no.The Ruling contained rationale that a man or woman can’t be punished for carrying their convictions into the marketplace.
But he still has to obey the law.
The comments about Colorado’s snark were a warning about what I just said. The Court was indicating how it would Rule in the future if Colorado or any other state decided to punish or demean a merchant for his 1st Amendment rights while in business.
Simple enough. 'The law says you have to serve people regardless of their sexual orientation". Drop Mike. Done.
Nope, the court just ruled they can't be mean to the guy's religion when they make decision.
He still has to obey the law.
I think too much. I thought of counter arguments to this issue.Nope, the court just ruled they can't be mean to the guy's religion when they make decision.
He still has to obey the law.
This lawsuit the baker filed is to further clarify what “being mean” to his religion means. And to clarify which law he is bound by, come-lately inferior state PA laws or the superior founding Law of the 1st Amendment.
I look forward to the USSC’s clarification. Because they’ve already thrown a broad hint where they are leaning.
Serve, yes. Decorate a cake a specific way with specific artwork, no.
This lawsuit the baker filed is to further clarify what “being mean” to his religion means. And to clarify which law he is bound by, come-lately inferior state PA laws or the superior founding Law of the 1st Amendment.
I look forward to the USSC’s clarification. Because they’ve already thrown a broad hint where they are leaning.
I think too much.
I thought of counter arguments to this issue.
What if making a Muslim use soap and water violates his religion is he free to work in a restaurant without washing up?
How about an Uber driver who refuses to transport dogs.
An Uber driver that refuses to be in a car alone with a female customer.
But still I don;'t think it's right telling someone what to draw. regardless of pallette.
I think you are trying to find a validation for homophobia...
Do you really think most commercial artists think all that much about what they are drawing or care?
