Online users
???: Message   

"Adamson was required to serve any customer, he was not required to promote any message."
Post Reply   Forum

Posted by: TEEBONE ®

12/06/2017, 15:56:44

Author Profile Mail author Edit




wnd.com

Christian baker: Supreme Court fight not about cake


About



Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., cited conflicting religious beliefs when he declined in July 2012 to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding reception. Photo/Denver Post

Jack
Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., cited
conflicting religious beliefs when he declined in July 2012 to bake a
cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception. Photo/Denver Post

The
nine justices on the U.S. Supreme Court now have in hand the arguments
over whether Colorado can create a state requirement that overrules
First Amendment rights.

It’s the Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece
Cakeshop case in which a baker was sued by the state Civil Rights
Commission after two homosexuals demanded he use his artistry to create a
wedding cake for them, even though same-sex marriage was not legal in
the state at the time.

He declined.

LGBT activists have
portrayed the case as a dispute over being treated equally in public
accommodations. In oral arguments Tuesday at the Supreme Court, justices
heard that state “fairness” agendas can trump the U.S. Constitution.

Reuters reported the arguments also focused on Phillips’ free-speech claim.

“Several
of the justices asked questions that suggested they are concerned about
how far a ruling in favor of the baker might extend. Liberal Justice
Elena Kagan wondered about whether a hairstylist, chef or a makeup
artist could refuse service, claiming their services are also speech
protected by the Constitution,” the report said.

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, speaks to his supporters after oral arguments conclude at the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2017 (Photo: Twitter/Alliance Defends)

Jack
Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado,
speaks to his supporters after oral arguments conclude at the U.S.
Supreme Court on Dec. 5, 2017 (Photo: Twitter/Alliance Defends)

“Why is there no speech in creating a wonderful hairdo?” Associate Justice Elena Kagan asked.

Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy commented on the implications of the decision for religious liberty.

Other
critics of Colorado’s actions have done the same, previously warning
that if the homosexuals are supported by the ultimate court ruling,
Muslim bakers could be forced to promote Jewish holidays and black
bakers to promote a KKK message.

The homosexuals, Charlie Craig
and David Mullins, base their complaint on state requirements for
fairness in businesses. They claim that the state can force businesses
to carry any message a customer wants.

The Alliance Defending
Freedom, which is defending Phillips, however, has pointed out in its
arguments that the same Colorado commission that is punishing Phillips
exonerated three other “cake artists who refused to express religious
messages” with which they disagreed. Those rejected messages were all
Christian messages.

“Had the commission applied the same rationale
to those artists that it applied to Phillips, it would have punished
them too. After all, [the law] forbids refusing service because of
religious beliefs, and those cake artists admitted that they declined
the requests because of the religious beliefs expressed on the cakes,”
the organization said in its brief.

Kennedy is believed to hold
the swing vote. He’s been conservative on some issues, such as free
speech, and radically liberal on others, such as same-sex marriage.

He
asked lawyers arguing before him Tuesday if Phillips, if he wins the
case, could post a sign stating that cakes for gay weddings were not
available. He was told yes.

He “looked troubled,” the New York Times reported.

However,
he also pointed out that the Colorado commission was “neither …
tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

In fact, the state commission’s antagonism to Christian beliefs became evident at the outset of the case, when one member, Diann Rice, publicly exhibited bias against Phillips during a hearing, comparing him to a Nazi.

“I
would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last
meeting,” Rice said during consideration of Phillips’ case. “Freedom of
religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of
discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be
the Holocaust, whether it be – I mean, we – we can list hundreds of
situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify
discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of
rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.”

“Outlasting
the Gay Revolution” spells out eight principles to help Americans who
hold conservative moral values counter attacks on freedoms of religion,
speech and conscience by homosexual activists

Hear a recording of Rice’s statement:

The
case is the sequel to the 2015 same-sex marriage decision in which the
four dissenting justices opined that the ruling was unconnected to the
Constitution.

Homosexuals claim allowing businesses to be operated by the faith of their owners undermines “equality.”

But those same business owners say their right to practice their faith already is protected by the U.S. Constitution.

A number of similar lawsuits have been filed.

The
issue already has been decided by the state courts in Kentucky, where
the fight was over a T-shirt printer who declined to promote
homosexuality.

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Human Rights Commission sued the Lexington-based company Hands-On Originals.

Owner Blaine Adamson was accused of violating “fairness” rules.

But lower courts ruled that while Adamson was required to serve any customer, he was not required to promote any message.

The
Kentucky Court of Appeals affirmed Fayette Circuit Judge James
Ishmael’s decision, stating, “Nothing in the fairness ordinance
prohibits Hands-On Originals, a private business, from engaging in
viewpoint or message censorship.”

“Nothing of record demonstrates
HOO, through Adamson, refused any individual the full and equal
enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages,
and accommodations it offered to everyone else because the
individual in question had a specific sexual orientation or gender
identity. Adamson testified he never learned of or asked about the
sexual orientation or gender identity of Don Lowe, the only
representative of GLSO with whom he spoke regarding the T-shirts.

“Don
Lowe testified he never told Adamson anything regarding his sexual
orientation or gender identity. The GLSO itself also has no sexual
orientation or gender identity: it is a gender-neutral organization that
functions as a support network and advocate for individuals who identify as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered,” the court found.

“Also,
nothing of record demonstrates HOO, through Adamson, refused any
individual the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,
facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations it offered to
everyone else because the individual in question was engaging in an activity or conduct exclusively or predominantly by a protected class of people.”

The ruling said: “The ‘service’ HOO offers is the promotion of messages. The ‘conduct’ HOO chose not to promote was pure speech. There is no contention that HOO is a public forum in addition to a public accommodation. Nothing in the fairness ordinance prohibits HOO, a private business, from engaging in viewpoint or message censorship.”

Jack Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, cited conflicting religious beliefs when he declined in July 2012 to bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception (Photo: Twitter/Alliance Defends)

Jack
Phillips, owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado,
cited conflicting religious beliefs when he declined in July 2012 to
bake a cake for a gay couple’s wedding reception (Photo:
Twitter/Alliance Defends)

After the oral arguments Wednesday at the U.S. Supreme Court, Phillips released a statement.

“Though
I serve everyone who comes into my shop, like many other creative
professionals, I don’t create custom designs for events or messages that
conflict with my conscience. I don’t create cakes that celebrate
Halloween, promote sexual or anti-American themes, or disparage people,
including individuals who identify as LGBT. For me, it’s never about the
person making the request. It’s about the message the person wants the
cake to communicate,” he said.

“I am here at the Supreme Court
today because I respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would
celebrate a view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith’s core
teachings on marriage. I offered to sell the two gentlemen suing me
anything else in my shop or to design a cake for them for another
occasion.

“For that decision, which was guided by an established
set of religious beliefs, I’ve endured a five-year court battle. It’s
been very hard on me and my family. There have been tears and many
difficult days for us. We have faced death threats and harassment. I’ve
had to stop creating the wedding art that I love, which means we’ve lost
much of our business – so much so, that we are now struggling to pay
our bills and keep the shop afloat.

“It’s hard to believe that the
government is forcing me to choose between providing for my family and
employees and violating my relationship with God. That is not freedom.
That is not tolerance.”

The homosexuals said they were “mortified”
when they realized they could not force Phillips’ to violate his faith
and promote their lifestyle choice.

They won their fight at the
state level, but at the Supreme Court, the issue is whether the First
Amendment’s protections for free speech and free exercise of religion
can be overridden by a state regulation purporting to promote
nondiscrimination.

The American Civil Liberties Union insisted a
decision for the baker would let florists, photographers, tailors,
choreographers, hair stylists and others live by their own faith.

There is another factor in the decision that affects not the plaintiffs but the court itself.

WND reported in 2015
shortly after the justices created same-sex marriage that James Dobson,
the high-profile Christian commentator, author and broadcaster who
concluded the dispute really isn’t about marriage at all.

Fundamentally, he contends, it’s a way to open up vast new avenues to attack Christianity.

Dobson, who founded the highly influential groups Family Research Council and Focus on the Family, and now runs Family Talk. charged in his monthly newsletter that the Supreme Court’s Obergefell decision is “an expression of hostility toward people who take their Christianity seriously.”

He
says the decision by five justices, including two who effectively
endorsed “same-sex marriage” while the case was pending, will prove
disastrous for America.

His view was supported by the four
dissenting justices, who warned that the decision had no connection to
the U.S. Constitution and likely will be used to attack Christianity.

Dobson wrote:
“We are convinced that this unconstitutional decision, issued by five
unelected, unaccountable and imperious justices, will ultimately prove
to be as catastrophic as Dred Scott v. Sanford in 1857 and Roe v. Wade
in 1973. It will touch every dimension of culture.”

He is
referring to the decisions that said blacks were not fully human and
that society has a right to kill unborn children for any reason.

“This court decision is not
about same-sex marriage, except only tangentially. Many gay and lesbian
groups have admitted that marriage has never been their primary
objective. Instead, it is about everything else,” he wrote at the time.

“What’s at stake is the entire culture war.”

Check out James Dobson’s “When God Doesn’t Make Sense” from the WND Superstore.

Dobson called the Obergefell decision an “expression of hostility toward people who take their Christianity seriously.”

“As
you probably know, certain groups and organizations hate us. It is
about weakening the church of Jesus Christ and limiting what pastors and
ministers can say and do publicly,” he said. “It is about undermining
the religious liberties of Christians that are guaranteed by the
Constitution. It is about attacking Christian schools, Christian
non-profit organizations such as Family Talk, and Christian businesses,
hospitals, charities, and seminaries. It is about Christian colleges and
universities, and about whom their leaders choose as professors and
what their students will be taught. It’s about government funding and
accreditation.

“It is all at risk. You’ll see.”

In a contemporaneous column,
Ambassador Alan Keyes went even further, calling for “Americans still
loyal to the premises of right and justice” to “emphatically reject” the
Obergefell decision.

“They must refuse to submit to it, just as
in colonial times America’s first patriots refused to submit to British
taxes imposed without regard for the will of legislatures elected by the
people; just as in the years before the last Civil War, people of good
conscience refused to abide by the Fugitive Slave acts and the U.S.
Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision; just as in the last century people
committed to God’s endowment of human justice opposed government
sanctioned racial segregation and discrimination, enforced in disregard
of the equality of nature conferred by the title of humanity.”

He
continued: “The Obergefell decision is a more directly treasonous
betrayal of constitutional law and justice than any of those previous
acts of tyranny. As ratified by the American people, the U.S.
Constitution derives its authority from their sovereign will. In the
Declaration of Independence they cite the authority of “the laws of
nature and of Nature’s God” and the will and judgment of the Creator and
Judge of all the world, as the basis for their claim of sovereignty. By
purporting to extend the name of marriage to acts and relations that
make no imperative contribution to the common good of human nature as endowed by the Creator, God, the U.S. Supreme Court challenges that will and judgment, treating it as of no account.”

Phillips, who has generated a tidal wave of support,
shares the Christian belief that the standard for marriage was
established by God, and no earthly court, including the U.S. Supreme
Court, can change it.

That position was stated emphatically by Rabbi Jonathan Cahn, author of the New York Times best-seller “The Harbinger” and the inspiration behind the “Isaiah 9:10 Judgment” movie. His most recent book, “The Paradigm,” is just out.

He
was addressing the Washington: A Man of Prayer event in the U.S.
Capitol in 2015, just before the Supreme Court released its marriage
opinion, which four justices criticized as unconnected to the
Constitution.

“The justices of the Supreme Court took up their
seats [in a hearing] on whether they should strike down the biblical and
historic definition of marriage. That the event should even take place
is a sign this is (the) America of (George) Washington’s warning … a
nation at war against its own foundation,” Cahn said.

“If this
court should overrule the word of God and strike down the eternal rules
of order and right that heaven itself ordained, how then will God save
it? Justices, can you judge the ways of God? There is another court and
there another judge, where all men and all judges will give account.

“If
a nation’s high court should pass judgment on the Almighty, should you
then be surprised God will pass judgment on the court and that nation?
We are doing that which Israel did on the altars of Baal,” said Cahn.

See Jonathan’s Cahn’s message at Washington: Man of Prayer event at the Capitol:

Stunningly,
the state of Colorado even claimed that Bible verses to which those
discriminatory but unpunished bakers objected “are not ‘closely
associated’ with religion.”

But that claim “cannot be taken seriously,” ADF explained.

“Outlasting
the Gay Revolution” spells out eight principles to help Americans who
hold conservative moral values counter attacks on freedoms of religion,
speech and conscience by homosexual activists









LIBERTY HAS NO EXPIRATION DATE

Democrats wouldn't buy a clue if it was government subsidized.





Post Reply | Recommend | Alert   Previous | Next | Current page