Colorado baker defends another legal attack by LGBT


Jack Phillips doesn’t belong in a courtroom, according to his legal defense team at Alliance for Defending Freedom. He should be baking and decorating cakes at his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo.

For more than eight years, Phillips has been pulled away from his confectionary artistry in order to fight for his civil rights and ability to live according to his Christian faith. He was sued for not baking a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, because it conflicts with his sincerely held beliefs. The LGBT activist community has since used him as a target and bullied him through the courts.

Through it all, Phillips endured the spotlight of the national media, lost significant business, and had to let several employees go. He’s received hateful phone calls, letters, and even death threats.

“After two wins — including one at the U.S. Supreme Court — you would think it would all be over,” ADL wrote.

But now, Phillips is embroiled in a third lawsuit. A Colorado trial court has entered an order punishing Phillips for living out his faith after he refused to bake a cake celebrating gender transition surgery. The court fined him the maximum amount — $500. The case is now on appeal.

Who is Jack Phillips? He’s a Colorado cake artist who was at the center of one of 2018’s most-talked-about U.S. Supreme Court decisions. Although he won an important victory at the Supreme Court, the State of Colorado didn’t get the message. It targeted him again.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission set its sights on Phillips because of his Christian faith. That was clear when it allowed other Colorado cake artists—but not Phillips—to decline to create custom cakes that expressed messages that the artists considered objectionable.

It was even clearer when some members of the civil rights commission made hostile statements against Phillips. One called his religious-liberty defense “a despicable piece of rhetoric” and compared him to perpetrators of the Holocaust. Phillips was being compared to a Nazi because he would not decorate a cake to celebrate a gay wedding.

The United States Supreme Court rebuked the commission in a 7-2 decision in which it condemned Colorado’s “clear and impermissible hostility toward [Phillip’s] sincere religious beliefs.”

Less than a month after the Supreme Court decision in 2018, Colorado’s government targeted Phillips again.

After Phillips filed a lawsuit against the state to stop that prosecution, in March 2019, the state of Colorado threw in the towel.

Now, Phillips faces his third legal battle. A trans woman, Autumn Scardina, ordered a cake to celebrate her transition from living as a male to living as a female. Scardina is a lawyer and was part of the LGBTQ bullying campaign.

Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones has rejected Phillips’ argument that making the cake is an act of free speech. The judge said it’s simply a product and that it cannot be sold to some people, but not others. The judge said Phillips’ refusal of service was due to his refusal to recognize Scardina as a woman.

That 2021 ruling that Phillips violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act was on appeal on Wednesday with the Colorado Appeals Court, where Phillips hopes to overturn the ruling.

Scardina says the case is about the dignity of LGBTQ Americans and Coloradans and the rule of law. Phillips say he fights for the rights of all Americans to live according to their consciences “without fear of punishment” by government.

Read more about Jack Phillips at Alliance for Defending Freedom.


    • It was found to be an unconstitutional denial of access to “public accommodations” services (restaurants, movie theaters, hotel/motels, etc) solely on account of a person’s race.

  1. Confusing. The government compels you by law to rent your apartment to a homosexual. However, it does not compel you by law to bake a cake for that same homosexual. Both transactions are private contracts involving the exchange of goods or services. However, the rental transaction is no longer treated as voluntary while the cake transaction is. The government and judiciary are illogical organisms.

  2. He (the lawyer) is fighting for dignity? By making an ass of himself because a baker doesn’t want to bake him a cake to celebrate his wearing women’s clothes?

    Dignity is going down the street to another baker and doing business there. Voting with his wallet. Not caring if Masterpiece doesn’t want to bake a cake for you.

    What this actually is is a systematic and deliberate attempt to destroy a man who dared say no to you. Who will let you live like you want to live, but will not help you celebrate it. For that sin he must be crushed. Hard.

    If Masterpiece isn’t crushed hard, others might follow.

    This is rabid hate in its most unvarnished form.

      • The Federation did no such thing. The Borg lost a few big battles, and has been in a rebuilding mode. They are certainly not gone at all.

        • Nope, but there is now a kinder gentler Borg if you believe the end of “Picard” season 2.
          I am with Bosk! This is all about overloading Americans with too many issues at once. When everything was shut down during covid these groups consolidated and planned (NEA, BLM, Defund the Police, Transgender, climate change). Add to that deliberated inflation and high gas prices now we are faced with an encircling attack on all our decent and treasured traditions and institutions, as well as common sense and the ability to live your life the way you see fit.

  3. How about this, It’s his cake bakery. His property, his business. He can serve those customers he wants and reject those customers he chooses not to serve. It’s his call, he can reject or accept business. Forcing someone to do something contrary to their will is slavery.

    • When will Excrement End, The idea business owners can serve some and reject others is a false narrative. Our overpowering central government began regulating the discretion of private business transactions decades ago. One obvious problem is logical inconsistency. While the baker is allowed to deny service for religious reasons an apartment landlord is not allowed to do so.

      • W. Coogan , your handle suggests that you oppose Tyranny and yet you go on to proclaim that liberty in the marketplace is a false narrative and that involuntary servitude is the law. This is a contradiction Sir. You either live free or succumb to Tyranny, if you want to live free, please consider the course of action below.

        You cite Land-Lord Tenant regulations, off hand I’ll bet that these are rules that were once a part of a Government Backed Loan Program to provide housing subsidies. Meaning if you the Land Lord borrower agreed to said terms and conditions then yes they may be enforceable, however if you are not subject to the above then any ruling contrary would be under Color of Law and repugnant to the Constitution. The same argument would hold true to even a Federal Regulation if it were repugnant to the Constitution. The problem is that we have allowed our Government and our Courts to run amok, which has led to inconsistencies both logical and legal.

        Tyranny ends when the people demand it to end and hold their government accountable to the Constitution. As Burke noted, ” no constitution can defend itself, it must be defended by the wisdom and fortitude of men”.

        So, lets man ( or Woman, or whatever you claim to be) the heck up and beat back these illusory bonds imposed upon the populace by government.

        • Robert A Schenker (too cowardly to use your real name), you say, “your handle suggests that you oppose Tyranny and yet you go on to proclaim that liberty in the marketplace is a false narrative and that involuntary servitude is the law.” What is wrong with your comprehension? I am opposed to tyranny. That is the reason I am protesting that liberty in the marketplace is a false narrative—because liberty has been removed therefrom. The overbearing government has made the marketplace anything but free. None of us have the free choice to refuse to do business with someone without government approval. Are you actually trying to suggest there is truly liberty in our marketplace? Got news for you Skippy; our liberties are a merely a shadow of what they once were.

          • Wayne Douglas, there are many fine examples of writers employing a pen name. Hamilton, Jay and Madison hid “cowardly” behind a pen name. ,More recently the social critic Anthony Daniels uses one. And what of Mark Twain?
            You purport to be the opposition to Tyranny Sir and yet become a petty tyrant demanding an end to the artistic expression and creativity of others by prohibiting the use of a pen name.
            Cowardly? That’s quite an accusation. I am offended Sir, I demand satisfaction, lacking a full apology will it be pistols or swords?

  4. We got the same thing here. I told a guy that he could not bring his filthy dog into my restaurant. I could smell it before I saw it. He threw a fit and started a Facebook attack on me, stating that it was some kind of service animal. What happened to being able to refuse service at the business owners discretion? What is it that makes you have to serve people that you disagree with? Starbucks in Seattle is closed now because of this kind of crap. Do you really want a cake from someone who doesn’t like you? This is so stupid. There’s a reason the assembly people never came to my restaurant; I would not serve them.

  5. That poor guy. He has my utmost sympathy. But I think he should make him/her/it a cake. Just like the pie that was made and served in the movie ‘Help’. There, enjoy, eat up.

    • While I certainly understand the sentiment, there are two issues:
      One, if you give in, you embolden the “tolerant” “diverse” and “inclusive” to push you further (like demanding you attend the ceremony after you set up the cake) and
      Two, then they will have a legitimate complaint and the health department will shut you down with glee in a heartbeat.

  6. The bottom line:
    LGBTQ agenda is not about them living amongst themselves freely and creating harmony in their own environment. Rather, it’s about disrupting the lives of straight people and Christians and shoving their brand of sexuality down the throats of everybody and anybody that doesn’t agree with them. These are the real Nazis. Intolerant of others. These people literally have hate in their hearts. It’s a cult of gay rage that they hope gets government backing and approval in the courts.

    • Ted, can I coin a phrase based on your remarks? Societal Rapists. These people are, as you quite accurately point out, raping society for some sort of twisted satisfaction of their tormented hate filled hearts. I never knew such belly button staring narcissism could actually exist.
      Surely there is an accommodating baker for the post surgery party.

    • Well said, Ted! This literally is an attack on the 1st Amendment. Freedom of religion and expression is protected by the Constitution. The States that have decided to go after people for their personally held beliefs with laws that are blatantly unconstitutional should be sued and or the citizens need to rectify the situation by voting out the dictators and replacing them with folks that understand what the Constitution says and remove any laws that violate it! This midterm election is the most important in USA history as we fight an evil established order that is attacking innocent civilians for being patriotic or exhibiting their rights under the Constitution. Please get involved as a poll observer and or worker. Checkout this great article from the Gateway Pundit on how to make a positive impact on your elections and ensure the integrity of them. There is a great PDF link in the article that has more details.


    • Spot on!
      Less than 11 miles away from Masterpiece Cake Shop is another bakery named Le’Bakery Sensual. That bakery specializes on LGBTQWERTYWHATEVER+ cakes, many of which are not family friendly. Look it up at your own risk.
      The fact that the family went to Masterpiece instead of Le’Bakery Sensual is, in my opinion, not an accident.
      This is an attack against Masterpiece and Jack Phillips because they committed the most horrific of crimes. Jack did not celebrate LGBTQWERTYWHATEVER+ life loudly enough. Therefore, he must be destroyed.
      It is the way leftists and children think.

    • Excellent analysis! In centuries past the ideologues employed goons going around and beating people, who disagreed or where of the “wrong whatever”, into submission. Clearly we have moved on. Instead of getting one’s hands dirty, present day ideologues now use their power in government to make rules and then unleash their goons via the courts to ruin those, who do not comply or sufficiently grovel.

    • And now they are a protected class of people, a minority. They may not be offended, discriminated against, or rejected in any form, lest they scream the loudest. The tail wagging this dog is big, though he small (sic).

  7. It doesn’t sound like they’re very gay or happy. It’s just their mental illness. Unfortunately we can’t lock up the mentally ill unless they break the law.

        • Prayer does not fail at all.
          Do not assume you know what the expected outcome is. Robert may be very successful with his prayers. You cannot discern what results he expects.
          It is only simple minded fools that think prayer will somehow result in immediate miracles. Everyone who actually has some faith knows this. It is only the godless ones that think a few Hail Mary’s will somehow cure cancer or have some immediate physical benefit. Then they mock those who still find solace in prayer.
          If Robert’s post is virtue signaling, what is your’s?

          • I don’t care if you see the virtue of reason that I obliquely referenced by saying “ nothing fails as reliably as prayer”.

            Here’s the reasoning. The results of prayer have two outcomes – either it produced or did not produce the desired outcome. If it did produce, how can it be verified through the scientific method? If it did not produce, it’s fair to ask why and that too involves the scientific method. In short, it is impossible to prove the efficacy of prayer.

            Also, the Christian god is omnipotent and omniscient. He knows our hearts and thoughts. He has a plan for each of us. What kind of arrogance is it that a mere muggle can expect to alter god’s plan with a prayer? It’s anti- theological and perfectly illogical.

        • Lucinda, when I say to Jim that I will pray for him it hasn’t anything to do with my virtue. Prayer to the Creator is a recognition of my total lack of virtue , understanding and or righteousness.

          Who was it that said, ” if I love you, what business is that of yours?”
          Why does it bother you when someone prays Lucinda?

          • I bothers me because prayer is not rational and we as a society need to make decisions based on facts and evidence.

        • Lucinda, it seems you misunderstand the concept of prayer. You assume that prayer asks for something and then you either get it or not. That’s infantile. Prayer is a conversation with God. It is a spiritual time in your journey to become a better person and reach your potential. Faith is an individual and very personal ongoing conversation with Christ and prayer plays a large part in this. When we pray for others, it isn’t to get them well or get stuff, it is more to understand the other person and ask Christ to think kindly of that individual. However in the end we each have our own journey and only God knows where any of us fit into his plan.

          • I’ve always encountered prayer as an ask like Christen above said s/he will pray for me. I assume the prayer will be something like asking your god to help me in some way. I don’t think Christen will have a conversation with god.

          • Lucinda, it is pretty presumptuous of you to claim knowledge of what Christen will or will not do. Why can you not take and accept at face value that others, even those who disagree with you, feel compelled to intercede to their higher power on you behalf? Even if you do not believe in God, the rules laid out in the Bible, make for a harmonious society. Don’t steal, don’t be jealous, don’t tell lies, don’t destroy a relationship, don’t murder, respect your elders and their experience…..
            You claim to be governed by facts and evidence. One may beg to differ, perusing your postings. That being said, good for you if that is how you see yourself, but in my opinion a lonely existence, because love, friendship, comfort, humor and joy are ALL intangible and can’t be scientifically measured, as they are as individual as any person. Yes you may measure brain function and hormone levels, but it doesn’t explain why some people are the way they are. It costs you nothing to be gracious and simply say “thank you”.

        • “…either it produced or did not produce the desired outcome. If it did produce, how can it be verified through the scientific method? If it did not produce, it’s fair to ask why and that too involves the scientific method.”
          How arrogant of you to assume you know what outcome Robert S. desired from his prayer.
          And, somewhere else in the comments on this article you claim to be a scientist. Yet, you toss around scientific method as if that means the outcome is always factual? News flash, you can follow every step of the scientific method and still come to an incorrect conclusion.
          Somehow, I think your claim of scientific knowledge is a bit overexaggerated.

        • “I bothers me because prayer is not rational and we as a society need to make decisions based on facts and evidence.”
          By the way. Who is saying we as a society should be making decisions based on prayer?
          Go on, name names.

    • I’m curious if you’re being cute or if you’re totally deranged.

      I’m hoping deranged. Cute isn’t a look that works well for you.

      • Replying to AFH. Thoughtful response. Thanks. Let me respond.

        You wrote “love, friendship, comfort, humor and joy are ALL intangible and can’t be scientifically measured”. Nice thing about the scientific method is that it allows for the POSSIBILITY that love etc CAN measured, though I would chose the word explained instead. These emotions and reactions are within the natural realm.

        Contrast that with supernatural beliefs like ghosts, spirits, a virgin birth and resurrection after death. THOSE things cannot be explained by natural processes, yet people deeply believe them.

        To me, it leaves two options to understand our world: data and evidence understood through the scientific method and faith that, while something is untrue, it is valuable still for many human reasons like comfort and tradition.

        These two options are at odds with each other. I don’t understand how both can produce reliable but contradictory conclusions.

        For example, if your snow blower doesn’t start, the scientific method would lead you to first check for fuel and spark. The faith method might lead you to believe that it didn’t start because you are not faithful enough or are not worthy.

        And I don’t know why you would think an atheist is lonely. That says more about you than me.

        • “Sigh”!
          Lucinda, your snowblower analogy is just plain silly and disrespectful. You are also dodging the issue regarding love etc. by claiming they “can be explained”. An explanation without cold, hard, reproducible numbers or facts, is just a guess, an opinion and to have any value needs to be taken on faith. You think science and faith in God are mutually exclusive. You are incorrect. Every new discovery is a glimpse into the universe God created, or what you call the natural world. To assume that we will or do know it all, is hubris and arrogance and borders on the flat earth “consensus” of past centuries.

        • “…For example, if your snow blower doesn’t start, the scientific method would lead you to first check for fuel and spark.”
          No. The scientific method would do no such thing.
          Where is the conjecture? The hypothesis, leading to experimentation and testing? Do you even know what the scientific method is? You keep using that phrase, but I do not think it means what you seem to think it means.

    • Colorado law (and the present-time forbearance of God) may permit Scardina to commit an abominable sin, but nowhere does the U.S. Constititution afford Scardina the right to force others, including this privately-owned bakery, into a commercial accommodation of her sin.

      • hasalaska, your statement is wrong. If the baker refused to rent her an apartment because of her homosexuality then he would be penalized harshly by our government. The claimant is seeking to set legal precedent for baking services to be treated similarly.

  8. Since the Supreme Court has ruled (this is not any real difference from the other case, he should be able to sue back for bullying, demanding not only a huge amount of money, but a large percentage of this person’s future earnings should be donated to non profit organizations picked by Mr. Phillips. And a percentage of the organizations backing his bullying.

      • I believe the Lord does.
        Your belief has no bearing on whether he exists, or whether he has the traits attributed to him by the Judeo-Christian branches of faith.
        By the way, why the animosity to those of faith? I thought you were liberal? As a liberal, one would think you could read CitizenKane’s comment, and just move on. But, instead, you are here demonstrating exactly how intolerant you really are.

        • I do not tolerate unsupportable conclusions based on poor thinking. Believing that prayer has a role in anyone’s life is not the product of critical thinking. It is the result of fear, a desire for comfort, and a short-cut analysis of evidence.

          I tolerate Christian mythology like any other interesting fable.

          • Not a single post you have ever put here on MRAK demonstrates the least amount of tolerance. Your equating religion to fables is simply your view on faith, and that is fine. However, do not mock those who have a different view of faith, or you will be labeled as intolerant.

        • Can you give me ONE piece of scientifically verifiable evidence to support your claim? I tend to be flippant, but not now. I’ve struggled with this all my life and if anyone could offer undeniable evidence, I’d gobble it up.

          • This argument has been going on a long time.

            The sadly departed Yuri Gagarin remarked to ground control on his single orbit in space 61 years ago that he looked out his window and saw no God. Ergo, God obviously didn’t exist.

            Evidence is funny stuff. A lot of us look out and see evidence of God every day. Others, not so much. Cheers –

          • You seem to believe a lot of things that have no supportable evidence there Lucinda. Nothing but magical thinking on your part. Your beliefs on gun control, so-called green energy, economics, etc… Across the board, you believe in things based from what I can tell, on your cherry picking the “evidence” that you believe in.
            I do not see the difference. Your “faith” is in something you can see, but it is faith nonetheless. You believe green energy is better, but that belief is based in ignorance of what the environmental and energy costs of creating green energy. You believe that restrictive gun control laws will work because you believe in it, and you outright reject anything that disagrees with your belief.
            But, to believe in a greater being? Somehow that requires undeniable evidence? You are no different than the religious people you ridicule. The only distinguishing factor is where you place your faith.

          • Lucinda, to accept one piece of verifiable scientific evidence would be to overlook the billions upon billions of scientific proofs that constitute the complexity of our creation, such as, cellular make up, DNA, mineral composition, erosion, infinitum ad nauseum. Or, look simply and logically at the “Just Right” evidence of earth’s placement in the universe. A mile closer and we’d burn up; a mile farther away and we’d freeze. Billions of years of evolution cannot provide for the absolute perfect placement and the growth of everything earth contains to arrive at life as it was ever known or as it is known today. How about the complexity of the human eye? It shows no evidence of evolution; It has always functioned as it does now. It has always been subject to injury, photosensitive, diet enhanced. It did not evolve from blindness to sight providing, rather may have degraded in efficacy from the conditions we’ve exposed it to. Man will always play catch up where God is concerned. We cannot explain a percentage of what it takes to create a universe, we can only manipulate what has been created. There are no new elements, only a revelation of that which already was after manipulation. The only thing that continues to evolve is knowledge, and with that our ability to understand that we did not create what is seen. To deny God’s existence as author of creation is the greater error. You wouldn’t be the first man to set out to disprove the existence God by men of science, only to be convinced of His existence. That is a function of His will, not yours.

      • Lucinda, there is no such thing as an atheist; rather only those who use the label to explain their rebellion to a God who makes Himself plainly known. Even a child understands something doesn’t come from nothing. The infinite cosmos was obviously created… as was life itself. It all exists under the rule of strict order and physical laws which can only exist with a law-giver. It would be illogical to think the Creator of said cosmos would be bound by the laws of His own creation. Therefore, He must only exist as a spirit…. which is, in fact, how He describes Himself. If you ask Him sincerely, He will reveal Himself to you.

        • Lucinda is desperate for an audience. That’s why Lucinda endlessly trolls MRAK. Why? Lucinda won’t change any minds here. The better bet is to ignore Lucinda and concentrate on electing Republicans and Conservatives into office, so the evils of Lucinda’s party can be reversed. …….

        • That I don’t understand the origin of the cosmos is no reason to invoke a god. Not knowing is fine with me.

          Why is it illogical for your god to live within the laws of his own creation? Seems like he has to unless you believe in a supernatural realm in which case I’d love to see some evidence of it.

          Why do I have to ask? Why doesn’t he make it easy for me?

        • Response to CB. Your claim that I have faith is incorrect but you raise an important point. I don’t know everything about green energy, but what I have read impresses me. Maybe I cherry-picked and didn’t access the full compendium of knowledge, but I still concluded it good. I very well may be wrong because I didn’t consider environmental and economic costs or a host of other factors.

          But because I’m a scientist, I recognize that I can be wrong and with additional information I may change my mind. The desire to produce new data and accept it if valid is the hallmark of science.

          That contrasts with faith and especially Christian faith. No amount of evidence to the contrary will dissuade believers of the impossible, like a virgin birth.

          To believe in your god, I need undeniable proof. Why does your god make it so difficult to believe in him?

          • “…Your claim that I have faith is incorrect…”
            No, it is not.
            You are absolutely a person of faith. Just because it is not a religious based faith does not change anything. It is faith, nonethless.
            And, your comments are clear. You will not accept new data if it conflicts with your beliefs. I need look no further than you comments on MRAK. Your delusional adherence to the fantasy that waiting periods for gun purchases will save lives, and your immediate dismissal of anyone that disagrees speaks volumes. Do not get me started on your adherence to the religion of the leftists, anyone who disagrees with your politics is ridiculed, mocked, or dismissed.
            I do not care whether you believe in god or not.
            I want you to be tolerant of those who do. And, I want you to demonstrate that tolerance by ignoring their comments, instead of mocking them.

  9. Why are social conservatives for State’s rights on a woman’s reproductive health but support the hated Federal government when it comes to baking cakes?

    • Frank, think it through…I get that you are the contrarian here but…

      Social Conservatives are supporting a right enumerated in the Constitution and in the Declaration of Independence … “unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

      So let’s look at life….

      “No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

      Right there….deprive a person of life….

      14th Amendment protects the rights of the child in the womb just as much as it does the child who has barely emerged from the womb.

      Onward to pursuit of liberty and happiness…

      Artists have rights to create what they want to create. They cannot be compelled to create art. That is what this man does — creates art in the form of a baked and decorated and edible piece of art.

      We can’t just have the government forcing artists to create something they feel is wrong. Unless we’re really at next-level trans-tyranny.

        • Well, yes, and in Alaska right now, you can abort a child right up to the moment of birth. As they say, everybody has a line they won’t cross. But Alaska’s law is such that until that baby takes its first breath, it can be torn limb from limb. I’d go with the 14th Amendment and protect that life. I’d err on the side of the child every time.

          • I didn’t realize that Alaska allows abortion at 40 weeks.

            This is not an original statement but somewhere between conception and birth a biological group of cells becomes a person. The crux of the debate is where on the line does personhood begins.

            I don’t know.

    • No officials I’m aware of are trying to repeatedly, systemically destroy a man’s life and profession.

      The state of Florida has not teamed up with anti abortion activists to destroy an individual doctor. Colorado has specifically gone after this guy.

      You really aren’t good at this.

  10. What does LGBTQ have to do with ones “christian beliefs? Jesus didn’t say a word about homosexuality. That’s old testament garbage.

  11. The LGBTQ, as well as the NEA need to be investigated to the highest degree and disbanded for endangering children and promoting a disease riddled lifestyle.
    I hear people all over say they don’t have a problem with them, yet complain when our simple right to refuse is bullied away by the same.
    The LGBTQ and NEA are responsible for the sexual grooming in our children via schools and books.
    The day a private business is sued because they wouldn’t bake a cake for a couple idiots falls into “reserves the right to refuse”. No explanation needed.
    A normal person would have just gone to another bakery.
    Not these petchulant children. They have to make a big ass deal about it. I want nothing to do with any of them.
    May they all rot in hell.

  12. I was told ”they only want to get married and treated like everyone else” oh what a fool I was to believe and support that. these people can never just take a W

  13. Pity an important discussion regarding a man’s ongoing harassment by the state has been derailed into a biblical kindergarten squabble.

    It does exactly what the trolls are after. Derails the conversation down a useless rabbit hole. The issue is the baker’s religious liberty. Not the biblical literacy of posters.

    This is exactly why the left is ascending. They focus.

    • MA, respectfully, I disagree. Understanding of religion and faith are at the heart of this discussion. The first amendment guarantees religious expression. It does not shoehorn religion into certain behaviors. When you argue that faith and religion are myths, it devalues the individual’s belief and the first amendment protections go away. This fight is about government denying Mr. Phillips the right to act on his faith and the inherent principles involved, while either forcing him out of business or to act against his convictions. It is the quintessential case our founders believed needed to be avoided, as in essence government dictates what expression of religious values count and which do not.

  14. Response to CB: you are not in a position to define me. Your information base about me is incomplete. Reading your comment left me with a sour taste of being lectured to by some holier than thou priest, one who claims to know what’s best for me while at the same time insulting my intelligence. You want me to be tolerant. Well, I’m not tolerant of unsupportable religious beliefs especially from one as arrogant as you.

    • Correct. My information about you is incomplete. I can only make statements based on the words you post on this website. And, I think I do a good job of making that clear.
      However, for someone who claims wisdom, you never seem to focus on yourself. Which is, in my opinion, a cornerstone of wisdom. Know thyself.
      You point out hypocrisy, but refuse to acknowledge your own. You demonstrate intolerance while claiming to be tolerant. There is no reason whatsoever for you to post “Nothing fails as reliably as prayer Schenker. Your post is virtue signalling.” None whatsoever. Anyone who is even remotely tolerant would have just moved on. But, no… you had to post something denigrating Robert S.
      If you cannot tolerate religion, and you cannot tolerate conservatives, and you cannot tolerate gun rights advocates, and you cannot tolerate…. the list is basically endless.
      Who can you tolerate? Those that agree with you completely?
      Here’s a pro tip. If you want people to take you seriously, start demonstrating the traits you claim to possess.

Comments are closed.