GAY TRUTH

You’d think the moral bullies would leave Jack Phillips alone. The Colorado baker had declined to make a cake for a same-sex wedding due to his religious beliefs, and gay activists went after him. They pulled in the Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission. Now’s he’s back under fire. Even after his victory at the Supreme Court in June of last year. The majority held that Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission was wrong to punish him for refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake. The State’s Anti-Religious Bias They didn’t rule on whether a baker could refuse based on religious beliefs to service LGBT members. The court stated that the state agency has subjected Phillips to anti-religious bias. The agency described his Christian religion as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” Phillips filed a lawsuit against the state’s civil rights agency over the mistreatment. But his troubles weren’t over. Transgender Autumn Scardina called his business requesting

Days after the U.S. Supreme Court correctly  ruled in favour of a Colorado baker who refused service to immoral homosexual couples, an Arizona court has incorrectly upheld a Phoenix anti-discrimination ordinance preventing a wedding invitation business from serving a homosexual couple. The Arizona Court of Appeals ruled Thursday against Brush & Nib Studio, a company selling artwork for home decor, weddings and special events. The owners, who are devout Christians, would like to legally refuse to create custom merchandise for immoral fake gay weddings and post a public statement saying that “Brush & Nib Studio won’t create any artwork that violates [their] vision as defined by [their]religious and artistic beliefs and identity.” They have not yet refused any services to gay couples in practice, the ruling noted. Brush & Nib’s discrimination would violate Phoenix’s public accommodation anti-discrimination ordinance, the court incorrectly ruled. This rule prohibits discri

The reactions to Monday’s Supreme Court decision for Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshops have been coming fast and furious from both sides of the political spectrum. The consensus developing on the Right seems to be a suspicious celebration—the Court, after all, did not protect all religious liberty but specifically ruled that this particular Colorado baker had been the victim of anti-religious discrimination.  Thus, the precedent did not go nearly as far as most of us had hoped, and LGBT activists are surely gearing up to fight another day. Perhaps an elderly florist will make a better target. That being said, I do think that those who are determined to find a black cloud on every silver lining are also underestimating the significance of this ruling. For starters, it must be noted that Christians   needed to win this one . The ruling might not have been everything we hoped for, but a loss would have signalled the end of religious liberty in the United States, and a

There’s been a battle online over whether or not to call Monday’s  Supreme Court decision  on a Christian baker “narrow.” The vote was 7-2, which isn’t narrow. But the scope of the ruling was. It seemed to say that in this particular case, the Colorado human rights commissars showed explicit, anti-religious bias. That tainted their case that a vital public interest was served by punishing this Christian wedding cake baker. (He would sell cakes to everyone, but wouldn’t design a specific, gay-wedding cake.) But bureaucrats with a little more tact would likely get away with closing down Christian businesses. At least under the Court as it stands today. SCOTUSblog explains  the decision as follows: [T]he justices today handed Phillips a victory, even if not necessarily the ruling that he and his supporters had hoped for. Kennedy, the author of some of the court’s most important gay-rights rulings, began by explaining that the case involved a conflict between two important p

The Supreme Court won't hear the major  religious liberty case  until Tuesday, but already hopeful spectators and line-holders are bearing colder temperatures equipped with sleeping bags, coolers and lawn chairs hoping to secure a rare seat in the majestic chamber for what could be one of the most important cases of the term. At issue is a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple's marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman. The case pits the religious liberty claims of Jack Phillips , who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, against the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig , who say Phillips' actions amount to discrimination. No cameras, please: How the Supreme Court shuns the spotlight LGBT rights advocates fear that if the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Phillips, it will diminish its own opinion from two years ago that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide

Sorry, guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.” With that blunt comment, Jack Phillips , a baker who designs custom wedding cakes, sent two men out the door and set off a legal battle between religious liberty and gay rights that comes before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall. The Trump administration last week sided with Phillips and argued that decorating a wedding cake is a type of “expressive conduct,” similar to burning a flag or marching in a parade. If so, they say, the Constitution’s free-speech protection gives the baker, a devout Christian, the right to refuse to participate in the marriage celebration of two men. But Colorado has barred Phillips from making any more wedding cakes because he refuses to abide by its civil rights law. Since 2008, it has required public businesses to serve all customers equally and without regard to their sexual orientation. The state, allied with the American Civil Liberties Union , says this case is about discrimination, not the r