Colorado Harasses and Persecutes Baker For Not Making a Cake to Celebrate Sexual Transition
Christian baker Jack Phillips was sued by Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission for not making a cake for a same-sex wedding. For his refusal, he was fined $135,000. His case was ruled on by the Supreme Court. In a 7-2 decision, the court ruled, on narrow grounds, that the “commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips’ rights to free exercise of religion.”
The decision has not stopped the Commission from persecuting Phillips further.
Now, the state is issuing new charges against Phillips for refusing to create a cake celebrating a “gender transition,” ignoring evidence that Phillips accepts all customers while refusing to create messages that violate his religious beliefs.
Trending: What’s Happened to Ann Coulter?
What reason did the Commission give for its continued harassment? The “Civil Rights Commission can issue new discrimination charges against Christian baker Jack Phillips because the panel’s members have been replaced.”
The members of the Commission may have changed but the reason for its persecution of Phillips is the same. Changing the members of the Commission does not change the intent of the SCOTUS ruling. If this is the way a law works, every Supreme Court ruling could be ignored by changing the original parties in the complaint.
Let’s be clear, the person wanting a cake to celebrate his/her “transition” to another sex targeted Phillips and his bakery. There were other bakeries that would have made him/her a cake. This was a deliberate attack on Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop.
“Both Mr. Phillips and Masterpiece serve everyone. All people – no matter who they are, what they believe or what protected class they belong to – are welcome in Mr. Phillips’ shop and may purchase anything available for sale,” Colorado Congressman Doug Lamborn argued. “But as a devout Christian, Mr. Phillips cannot create custom cakes the express messages or that celebrate events in conflict with his deeply held religious beliefs.
“We are a stronger as a nation because of the societal contribution of religious Americans like Jack Phillips. Mr. Phillips and other creative professionals should not be targeted by the government for living consistently with their deeply held beliefs just because an agency director or the government doesn’t like those beliefs.”
In the previous case, Colorado was scolded by the Supreme Court for “hostility” toward Christians and toward Phillips. … Phillips’ lawsuit cites the fact that the commission refused to prosecute several homosexual bakers who were given permission to refuse to create a cake with a Bible message that violated their beliefs.
It’s insane to claim that a person wanting to change his or her sex should have some special legal status in the same way that a person who identifies as a particular gender (of which there are now around 50 or 71 depending on who’s counting ((“UK Facebook users can now choose from one of 71 gender options.)) or who engages in same-sex relationships should have a special legal status. When will this insanity stop?
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission needs to take a (surprising) lesson for the Supreme Court in Great Britain that ruled unanimously that
the owners of a bakery did not discriminate against a customer by refusing to make a cake supporting gay marriage…. Christian couple Daniel and Amy McArthur, who run Belfast-based Ashers Baking Company, told activist Gareth Lee they would not make the cake featuring Sesame Street puppets and the logo of campaign group Queerspace.
After a long-running legal battle over whether the McArthurs broke discrimination laws, five Supreme Court justices announced their decision in London on [October 10, 2018].
Delivering the ruling, Supreme Court president Lady Hale said the couple did not refuse to make the cake because of Mr Lee’s sexual orientation.
She said: “Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee or anyone else with whom he was associated.
“The bakers could not refuse to supply their goods to Mr Lee because he was a gay man or supported gay marriage, but that is quite different from obliging them to supply a cake iced with a message with which they profoundly disagreed.” (Sky.com)
Exactly! Such a liberty applies to everyone, not just people of certain religious convictions.