Yes, in the seventh paragraph of the
second article in the OP, he is found to have said:
“I’ll sell anyone any cake I’ve got,” he wrote. “But I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. I also won’t use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.”
Comparing being gay with cheating at business? Come on, be nice.
I am comparing that some people expect immorality to be readily accepted, and some people are not comfortable to be party to immorality.
You would benefit to think deeply upon the proverbial wisdom of King Soloman's observation of this behaviour:
"The righteous detest the unjust, and the wicked detest the upright".
I'd be curious to see any documentation of him saying or writing anything about this before the incident in question.
Funny how his web site doesn't say anything about it being a business intent on blessing things at all. It talks about baking cakes. In fact, it invites people to select from his gallery of cakes or go for a custom designed cakes without mentioning any sort of restrictions. Blessings aren't mentioned once. Where is all this stuff coming from after the fact? If it is true, why does he hide it from potential customers?
I am sure you have been in a situation where you have thought "dang, I wish I had explained it that way". Well, it's just that often we don't understand really why we are the way we are until we have sat down and made sense of it. Sometimes, it also helps to have an objective analytical perspective, such as I am doing. Anyway, while he is being expected to explain his objection before fully rationalising it, we should expect his words to contain some deficiency in fullness of understanding. However, if he is being honest, then those words should not contradict the fullness of understanding as it becomes manifest - this is what an investigation establishes so far as finding out the truth.
Also, there is often some reluctance (fear) to speak fully and openly about the way we truly feel, and in this case we can see that he is somewhat limited in his ability to speak in objection to homosexuality because people are particularly sensitive to the topic in the present times, and it carries a risk of provoking that bias to trigger an irrational reaction. It sounds like the laws for minority support were crafted in that vicinity while being under the influence of particular passion, lending themselves toward extremists who wish to use the law for unjust purposes.
Another wisdom of King Soloman is insightful toward this: Proverbs 28:12
"When the righteous triumph there is great glory, but
when the wicked rise to power, people hide."
It is obvious that this man is somewhat concealing the full expression of his heart, because the wicked have some share of power, using law to trap and prosecute those who are upright. If he is to be fully open, bluntly honest with his words, he would be caught in their net (Proverbs 1:17).
The faithful have disappeared from the land,
and there is no one left who is upright;
they all lie in wait for blood,
and they hunt each other with nets.
Their hands are skilled to do evil;
the official and the judge ask for a bribe,
and the powerful dictate what they desire;
thus they pervert justice.
Micah 7:2-3
Ah, I see, thanks for that! He obviously does not feel grieved by blessing that celebration of love .. and why should he? Dogs are the most loving creatures on earth, by my observation.
This gay couple has no interest in love, they have abandoned it
to pursue hatred instead.
Essentially at the foundation of this, is dominance. You who argue that this man should be forced to do that which he doesn't enjoy doing, because he is offered money, you are of the mindset of enslavement. Your god is money, you think that money should have power to achieve anything at all. You do not realise that
money only represents tangible goods that are in a process of exchange.
Money, when used in your way, is idolatry. Did it never occur to you, sir, that you are engaging in idolatry? What will you do when the greater idolater turns upon you? Is this something that you have thought much about? I do most seriously advise it:
Thus no one was allowed to buy or sell things unless he bore the mark of the beast--that is, his name or his number.
I wonder whether you have possibly not yet realised that you are promoting a tyrannical regime. There is yet an opportunity to avoid that calamity, it requires only that we maintain justice and righteousness, not empowering wickedness to thrive so that Yahweh is not provoked to wrath by His displeasure:
Then he said unto me, Hast thou seen this, O son of man? Is it a light thing to the house of Judah that they commit the abominations which they commit here? for they have filled the land with violence, and have turned again to provoke me to anger: and, lo, they put the branch to their nose. Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity: and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet will I not hear them.
Ezekiel 18:17-18
Society decided long ago that refusing service to minorities based on religious beliefs isn't something that deserves respect.
First of all, I can see that you are struggling to decouple the idea of homophobia from religiosity. In fact, it is not simply a religious objection, it is a moral objection. It so happens that Mr. Phillip's understanding of his moral conviction at this time, is somewhat limited by his belief that morality is the exclusive property of Christianity, which of course neither you or I would agree is a valid belief.
Overlooking that, it can't have been the whole of society that agreed that a man should serve a minority simply because he is a minority; and even if it is a popular ethic in society, and even if it generally is a wholesome rule, it can't possibly make it right in every case. Law simply does not operate that way, because life's problems are so vast and complex, that no number of written decrees will ever define the comprehensive solution. The only thing that will resolve all problems, is a change in heart from being a person that is afraid of being deprived (forcing others to supply his needs), to one that loves to liberate others from his fear by pursuing contentment rather than covetousness.
It isn't a religious ideal either, it is about love and respect for our neighbours. It is being grateful to have whatever is sufficient for our needs. That is the pursuit of godliness transcending religion.
Essentially, the situation is like this:
They want to celebrate, and they want to present a cake at the celebration. They could certainly have made their own cake, but they wish to have a much more impressive cake than they are capable of crafting with their existing skill. They know of someone who is highly skilled and it is their desire to have a share of those skills in their celebration. Mr. Phillips, having a moral objection to their celebration, refuses to yield his body in service to their celebration. Instead of going home to bake their own cake, they wish to make sure that this man can by no means again refuse to act in a way that he does not wish to act.
Now, there is a glaring hypocrisy in this:
Did they end up getting a cake for their celebration elsewhere? And if so, why can they not be content with that cake?
Why must they seek to inflict revenge upon Mr. Phillips, attempting to force him to perform in future an act that makes him feel deeply disturbed?
