The Never-Ending Persecution of Jack Phillips

rjs330 said:

He refused to create an object. He discriminates as to what he makes.

Click to expand...

it was a wedding cake and he created them all day every day

SilverBear said:

why pretend they are not?

you mean like how straight couples just go grab any available cake on the way to the wedding reception? Or is that 'different"?

Masterpiece bakery specifically advertised and engaged in custom cake making. It was a service provided to everyone else.

Why should members of a minority have to go and find business that will serve them?

Click to expand...

One can go to an artist whose moral views one is aware of and insist that the artist render a piece of work that the artist finds morally offensive but it is certainly a pretense to then suggest that the point of all that was actually to get a piece of art when it is obviously the confrontation that one was seeking and not the art itself.

SilverBear said:

it was a wedding cake and he created them all day every day

Click to expand...

This thread is not about a wedding cake. Perhaps you ought to read the link the OP provided so you will know what we are discussing. It seems that a p[articular person has been asking for numerous cakes that the person knows the baker will refuse to make in order to harass the baker because the baker has a different moral viewpoint than the person has and the person wishes to punish non compliance with the person's personal moral POV. Requesting a cake the person knows well in advance that the baker will refuse to create is clear evidence that the person simply wants to confront and harass and a cake is not something the person actually has a desire for. If there was actually desire for such a cake the person would have bought one somewhere by now but the person has not. Instead the person has hired an attorney to sue the baker for not abandoning the baker's religiously based moral principles. .

SilverBear said:

no, its just a cake

Click to expand...

It's more than a cake, it's also speech. Otherwise a plain sheet cake without any particular colors or decorations would do the job for all of his prospective customers.

SilverBear said:

still wondering why you brought up abominations

Click to expand...

It's rather clear God doesn't feel differently about homosexuality in the New Testament even with the word abomination not being strictly used. When the Bible says says that a man with a man or a woman with a woman burn in their lust towards one another, commit that which is shameful and are given over to a debased mind, then you really don't have to read in between the lines here. He calls it vile passions and that which is unnatural and against nature. Does that sound like God would bless the "marriage" of a homosexual couple? You have to pretty much ignore what the Bible says to even justify this.

But if you're willing to argue with the scriptures, then I don't know what else to tell ya.

grasping the after wind said:

One can go to an artist whose moral views one is aware of and insist that the artist render a piece of work that the artist finds morally offensive but it is certainly a pretense to then suggest that the point of all that was actually to get a piece of art when it is obviously the confrontation that one was seeking and not the art itself.

Click to expand...

but in this case the art that is "morally offensive" is identical to everything else the artist does and the reason for not doing the art is the identity of the buyer

grasping the after wind said:

This thread is not about a wedding cake. Perhaps you ought to read the link the OP provided so you will know what we are discussing. It seems that a p[articular person has been asking for numerous cakes that the person knows the baker will refuse to make in order to harass the baker because the baker has a different moral viewpoint than the person has and the person wishes to punish non compliance with the person's personal moral POV. Requesting a cake the person knows well in advance that the baker will refuse to create is clear evidence that the person simply wants to confront and harass and a cake is not something the person actually has a desire for. If there was actually desire for such a cake the person would have bought one somewhere by now but the person has not. Instead the person has hired an attorney to sue the baker for not abandoning the baker's religiously based moral principles. .

Click to expand...

i am reminded of this old PSA.

Do you think the landlord here is being harrassed?

tryphena rose said:

It's rather clear God doesn't feel differently about homosexuality in the New Testament even with the word abomination not being strictly used. When the Bible says says that a man with a man or a woman with a woman burn in their lust towards one another, commit that which is shameful and are given over to a debased mind, then you really don't have to read in between the lines here. He calls it vile passions and that which is unnatural and against nature. Does that sound like God would bless the "marriage" of a homosexual couple? You have to pretty much ignore what the Bible says to even justify this.

But if you're willing to argue with the scriptures, then I don't know what else to tell ya.

Click to expand...

it's not that clear at all. But discussing that would involve a detailed look at translation issues your posted verses have. If you really want to get into that i would be happy to oblige.

Michie said:

They want to break him to send a message. But the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner is standing his ground.


NRPLUS MEMBER ARTICLEJack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., is back in court. At this rate, the poor man will probably be badgered to his grave.

Phillips earned his unwanted fame after an unelected gaggle of authoritarians at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission embarked on a six-year bigoted crusade to wreck his business after the baker refused to design a specialty cake for a gay-wedding ceremony in 2012.

Continued below.
Religious Liberty: Jack Phillips' Never-Ending Persecution | National Review

Click to expand...

There are many ways to answer requests for messages on cakes etc.
In any design of a cake what is possible or practical is limited by various factors.

There are levels of taste and decency, which normally limit the two parties in their negotiations.

In this argument, it is not about who the customer is, but the message they want to convey on the commercial item. I would ask what are the limits of decency and discrimination allowed in the society on advertising and public signs.

If one was imaginative, you can list what is possible and what is not within the constraints available at various costs. These limits are irrespective of the customer, and therefore not discriminatory.

Some individuals can decide to attack individuals and create trouble, but if clearly there arguments are limited by the contractual nature of agreements, it can easily be dismissed.

God bless you

SilverBear said:

it's not that clear at all. But discussing that would involve a detailed look at translation issues your posted verses have. If you really want to get into that i would be happy to oblige.

Click to expand...

It's VERY CLEAR. Homosexuality is sin. Plain and simple. The passage is not in error and when studying it utilizing the original languages and meanings it can not be taken any other way. God did not change his mind and it is as sinful now as it ever was.

If you want to discuss this I would be happy to oblige.

Sketcher said:

He does sell baked goods, and he sells everyone baked goods.

Click to expand...

He has two conceptually separate businesses: selling baked goods and making custom cakes for events. For the first he doesn't discriminate. For the second he does. In the first case he refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. That was certainly discrimination, but to my knowledge the Supreme Court hasn't decided whether it is constitutionally protected.

Indeed it may depend upon the specifics. E.g. the Court could conceivably decide that a baker must make a generic cake for a gay wedding but would not be obliged to put a specific message on a cake that they disagree with. The second case involves a specific design that could be taken to be symbolic speech. The baker probably has a stronger case for this.

Personally, although I'm an advocate for both gay and trans rights, I'd prefer to leave the guy alone. I support public accommodation laws requiring nondiscrimination, and he did violate one. But there are times when it isn't helpful to enforce laws.

Should we force Jewish bakers to cater a Nazi function? Blacks to cater a KKK one? Muslim printers to make Muhammad cartoons?

Being against Christian bakers opposed to making cakes for gay weddings is a logically untenable position. They argue that baking a cake is not expressive, and therefore not protected speech. At the same time, not baking a cake is obviously an expression. It is one or the other?

renniks said:

This has nothing to do with the subject, some people just like to insert the race card into everything. It just makes you sound desperate.

Click to expand...

Yup, just an effort to shut down debate.

SilverBear said:

The topic is discrimination

Click to expand...

The topic is free exercise of religion.

Aldebaran said:

You totally dismiss what his real reason was, even though it has been stated over and over again here, and is contained in the article posted by the OP, parts of which has been posted again by others. Again, from the article:

"And it is always worth reiterating that Phillips never declined to “serve” a gay couple in 2012, as so many misleading media reports claim. The couple, like everyone else, was free to buy anything they pleased in Masterpiece Cake shop. Phillips refused to design a new cake from scratch for an event he felt undermined the sanctity of marriage. If it had been a inappropriate contentographic cake or bawdy design for a macho-istic heterosexual bachelor party, he surely wouldn’t have made that cake either. Phillips isn’t discriminating against people; he is discriminating about the things he is willing to say."

Click to expand...

True, Phillips has no obligation to use his artistic talents to promote a cause against his conscience, just as would apply to any other artists. Look at his work, he is a true artist.

Aldebaran said:

And that person made it clear what the meaning was to be.

Click to expand...

a lets make two identical cakes, i'll happily bake the cake with the message so you don't have to compromise your morals and bake for a minority. So we have two identical cakes one going to the person with the message and the other going to someone who just wanted a cake with no message involved. But they are identical and the delivery person mixes them up. Does that mean the cake you made suddenly stops being a cake and becomes a message? or does it remain just a cake and get eaten?

rjs330 said:

It's VERY CLEAR. Homosexuality is sin. Plain and simple. The passage is not in error and when studying it utilizing the original languages and meanings it can not be taken any other way. God did not change his mind and it is as sinful now as it ever was.

If you want to discuss this I would be happy to oblige.

Click to expand...

the problem is the meaning of words in the original language