Bitcoin Forum

... And Slaveholders.


DENVER | Colorado baker Jack Phillips was found guilty of discrimination for refusing to prepare a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, but his attorneys said Monday that a state official who ruled against him is guilty of anti-religious bias.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys released an audio recording in which Diann Rice, a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, said that Mr. Phillips‘ citing of his religious beliefs in his defense puts him on the same level as Nazis and slaveholders.

In 2012 Mr. Phillips declined to bake and decorate a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, saying that his Christian faith prevented him from doing so. He offered to make them any other kind of cake, but the two men filed a complaint against him with the commission.

“I would also like to reiterate what we said in the last meeting [on Mr. Phillips]. 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,” Ms. Rice said at the July 25 hearing.

“I mean, we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination,” Ms. Rice said. “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use — to use their religion to hurt others.”

Jeremy Tedesco, ADF senior legal counsel, said in a statement that Ms. Rice’s comments reveal an “anti-religious bigotry” that “undermines the integrity of the entire process and the commission’s order as well.”


The audio recording was released Monday along with a brief filed with the Colorado Court of Appeals, which challenges the seven-member commission’s May 30 ruling based in part on Ms. Rice’s “alarming bias and animus toward Phillips’s religious beliefs.”

“At least one Commission member holds such beliefs,” the brief said. “And her comment suggests that other members of the Commission may share her view that people who believe marriage is only between a man and a woman are comparable to those who committed the Holocaust. This anti-religious bias undermines the integrity of the Commission’s process and final order.”

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is one of several working its way through the court system that pits gay couples against Christian small business owners who have declined to provide services for same-sex marriages.

Refusing to create products for same-sex weddings amounts to discrimination, say gay rights groups, while Mr. Phillips and others argue that their products, such as wedding cakes, floral arrangements and photographs, constitute artistic expression protected by the First Amendment.

In its ruling, the Colorado commission ordered Mr. Phillips to re-educate himself and his staff on state anti-discrimination law, adopt policies to comply with the order and file quarterly compliance reports for two years.

“The reports must include the number of patrons declined a wedding cake or any other product and state the reason for doing so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business,” said the ADF in a statement.

Ms. Rice was also accused of wrongly citing U.S. Supreme Court precedent on discrimination. During the hearing, she said that “the U.S. Supreme Court has found over and over that you cannot discriminate on the basis of race, and sexual orientation is a status absolutely like race,” according to the audio.

Not so, said ADF attorneys.

“The U.S. Supreme Court has never found that sexual orientation is a status equivalent to race. In fact, the high court has twice held that the First Amendment bars the government from relying on sexual orientation nondiscrimination laws to force people or groups to speak messages with which they disagree,” said the ADF statement.

Ms. Rice did not respond Monday to an attempt to contact her through the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies, which oversees the commission.

ADF attorney Nicolle Martin said the commission’s ruling against Mr. Phillips “demonstrated misstatements on constitutional law [and raises] serious questions about their judgment.”

“Jack should not be forced by the government — or by another citizen — to endorse or promote ideas with which he disagrees,” Ms. Martin said. “But it’s worse when he is forced to do so by one or more officials who make serious errors in their legal analysis and justify coercing the speech of a private citizen by citing their own hostility to religion.”


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jan/12/colorado-cake-case-pits-religion-against-tolerance/

Would you have posted this had it not been homophobia? Would you still be on the bakers side had it been somthing you approve of instead, that has the same sort of problem in society as homophobia does?

The irony is that there would not need to be a law about singling out customers not to serve, if homophobia were not such a big problem, even if some discrimination was occurring.

Can you imagine if a baker refused to serve you, because, let's say you had the wrong hair color, what if you were with other people when it happened.

Seems ridiculous right, and that baker would loose custom, at least one customer, well it's about bullying in this case over sexual preference, but it could be about another similar issue such as race. It's not hair color, and because it's about somthing that is a problem, it matters more.

It's hard to believe that you'd single this out as being important or shocking, with such a "how dare they compare him to a natzi" attitude if you were not homophobic, and look, we still just about tolerate you here. I'm very much in favor of 'freedom of speech', don't personally be evidence against it.

Have you read the article? Not sure you did. The article is about exactly what you are describing. The baker was expecting a fair hearing but the audio recordings are telling another story.

I have to say I find it strange no bakers of Muslim faith have been visited by gay couple for their wedding cake. Would it mean Muslim bakers do not exist in the US? That could be a very strong possibility OR a stronger sign of targeted descrimination by the gay community. They should not boycott the Muslim bakers... :)

Your feedback is noted. Don't forget to voice your outrage to the author of the article by clicking on the link provided.

Thank you.

What the hell happened to rights to private property. this shouldn't even be about gay marriage but about rights for private property.

Agreed, this has mostly to do w/ an out of control gay community trying to push themselves on others for no reason. I mean, if someone doesn't want to bake you a fucking cake then go to do business w/ someone who does. Then if you feel the need, start an ostracizing boycott against this person. This is beyond unnecessary and all it does is make them look pushy and stupid. This garbage only plays well w/ those that have white or straight guilt, I certainly don't tip toe around anybody no matter what their background is.

Its really stupid. He owns the business and denied them his service. they could have simply left and bought a cake elsewhere but nooo.

The article is the same as the OP quoted.

They did get this hyphen in the wrong place.

I guess the woman that has anti religious bigotry doesn't know that Stalin and moa huge atheist killed more than any Christian wars.

For the gay mafia to sue US christian bakers make a lot of sense. They know it is a safe bet. No fatwa, no communist reeducation camps...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOzmAn1fQ10

Is there a difference in your mind between a business that won't serve gays and a business that won't serve people of color, or are both refusals equivalent? (General question to anyone in this thread.)

no difference in my mind, people should be able to do business with who they want

And on top of all this, the court case may wind up costing the general public in excess of $250,000, taken through taxation, of course.

:)

We need segregation.  :)

Unfortunately, I don't know if you're kidding or not, cuz some of the views you express are whacked out of this world.

Yet another case the gay mafia will never ever touch, blog or talk about. EVER. Wedding cakes should be the target only. Full of evil sugary stuff made by christians...  :)

Yeah, how does refusing to bake a cake cause bodily harm to justify a comparison to the holocaust? That's absurd...

Business owners should refuse service to anybody they want, for any reason they want. If I don't like the vibe coming from a potential customer, I don't want to risk ignoring that gut feeling, and I certainly don't want to give them a legitimate reason to spend any more time in my place of business than necessary...

Option 1: get your cake somewhere else
Option 2: bake the cake yourself
Option 3: don't buy a cake
Option 4: call off the wedding because you were turned down by a cake maker
Option 5: use force to get what you want

Get real, what would a rational person do?

Non white Christians are never wrong

D all of the above?

You chose the D...

 ;)