Baker says no wedding cake to gay bullies

Should a Jewish person be forced to serve a Nazi soldier? In the USA they might be forced or jailed. 

The Supreme Court is due to consider the case of Jack Phillips, who says his refusal to bake for same-sex weddings is protected by the First Amendment

The USA Supreme Court will hear in its term beginning October 2nd is the Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Division, Charlie Craig, and David Mullins. It’s not every day that the justices hear a conflict between a sweets purveyor and both a gay couple and a government agency charged with policing discrimination. But the clash was inevitable. 

In Obergefell v Hodges, Justice Anthony Kennedy inserted a caveat into his immoral opinion opening marriage laws nationwide to gays and lesbians. These judges took it upon themselves that they had the right to redefine marriage. A small group of un-elected individuals with no authority regarding the foundation and purpose of marriage chose to allow homosexuals to be married. Kennedy knowing that they had made an error, but tried to cover it with this statement:

“Those who adhere to religious doctrines may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned and they are protected in this mission by the First Amendment." 

The court knowingly set American against American in an area of historic important where they had no authority. 

The problem in Masterpiece Cakeshop began in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins, immoral homosexuals who believe they have rights that trump others,  began planning their immoral homosexual wedding reception.

Craig’s mother and the two homosexuals entered Jack Phillips’s shop to buy a wedding cake and promptly learned that immoral homosexuality is not accepted or celebrated by everybody. 

Mr Phillips told the homosexuals that it is his “standard business practice not to provide cakes for homosexual weddings”. While happy to “sell the other baked goods, including ‘birthday cakes, shower cakes, … cookies and brownies’”, he draws the line at immoral homosexual marriage.

To this day, no federal law requires bakeries or other private businesses to serve gays and lesbians, but 21 states and the District of Columbia do extend these protections. Colorado’s public accommodations law is unequivocal: no “business engaged in any sales to the public” may “refuse...to an individual or a group, because of..sexual orientation” the “full and equal enjoyment” of their goods and services. 

On the basis of this incorrect rule, Craig and Mullins complained openly to the Colorado Civil Rights Division. Like all homosexuals right based individuals, they have learnt to complain, threaten to take people to court, call people bigots. homosexuals demand their lifestyle be accepted or see you in court. Why did Supreme Court justice knowingly divide America based on false self proclaimed homosexual rights? 

 The agency followed the homosexuals complaint and ordered Mr Phillips, Masterpiece Cakeshop’s proprietor, to comply with the law and make wedding cakes—if he makes them for anyone—for all comers. 

Now Mr Phillips, who has suspended his wedding-cake business to avoid supplying dessert to immoral homosexual individuals, is demanding the Supreme Court for fine and jail this person. Homosexual demands you change your morals or go to jail.

The First Amendment’s guarantees of free speech and free religious exercise, he says, prohibit Colorado from compelling him to make cakes that violate his conscience.

The parties are now at work on their briefs to the justices, but a preliminary sense of how the argument is likely to proceed is found in the documents they submitted last autumn when the Supreme Court was considering whether to take the case. The crux of the disagreement lies in the two sides’ radically different characterisations of the legal issue at stake: the so-called “question presented”.

Mr Phillips’ lawyers say the justices must resolve “[w]hether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel Mr Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free-speech or free-exercise clauses of the First Amendment”. 

Notice this query says nothing about cake. It concerns “expression” and whether Colorado may “compel” Mr Phillips to “create” it against his conscience. 

If the Supreme Court accepts Mr Phillips’ logical and solid, his chances are good. The court has long read the First Amendment to bar the government from forcing individuals to express ideas they disagree with. 

In rejecting compulsory flag salutes by public school students in 1943, Justice Robert Jackson famously noted that ‘‘[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein”. 

But as the commission and the couple point out, Mr Phillips’ did not object to creating a cake bearing any particular message or image. He told the men he had a blanket policy of not baking any cakes to be consumed at same-sex weddings. Despite his professed willingness to sell gay people other goodies like brownies and birthday cakes, that flat-out rejection of a wedding cake sounds more like a refusal to serve gay and lesbian couples rather than a conscientious objection to creating particular “expression” on a confection.

If the conservative-tilting Supreme Court ultimately sides with Mr Phillips, it will have to work out how to limit the fallout of a decision that prioritises solicitude toward religious views over immoral demands in the marketplace. 

For if there is a constitutional right for a Christian proprietor not to bake any kind of cake for two men getting married, it is hard to see why there wouldn’t be a similar right for a photographer or a caterer to turn away, say, interracial couples or Muslims whose beliefs or lifestyles clash with his religious scruples. 

Should a Jewish ship keeps sell product to a Nazi clothed in military uniform?