Is it because his artistry is so much better than all those others?
Show embed codes
IMAGE DESCRIPTION:
A GAY COUPLE DRIVES 120 MILES PAST 67 SECULAR OWNED BAKERIES TO A CHRISTIAN OWNED BAKERY ARMED WITH A LAW SUIT AND NEWS CREW TO DEMAND A WEDDING CAKE; BECAUSE NOTHING SAYS "MY RIGHTS ARE BEING VIOLATED" LIKE GOING OUT OF YOUR WAY TO VIOLATE SOMEONE ELSE'S RIGHTS
hotkeys: D = random, W = like, S = dislike, A = back
1985. We want tolerance!
2005. we want equal rights!
2015. (puts gun to head) bake the F**KING CAKE BIGOT !!
But they could respect the bakers beliefs.
It's really ironic. The whole situation.
Even if the SCOTUS rules against Jack Phillips and says that his creative artistry is not protected enough to refuse to make a cake for homosexuals, they will never target a Muslim bakery.
Just like the average leftist doesn't make fun of Mo-ham-head and calls him "a great profit" and with the same breath blasphemes Jesus. They won't target Muslims because they know some Muslims will declare jihad and try to kill them for it.
There may be some conservatives who intentionally call up a Muslim bakery to order something "non-Sharia compliant."
I just hope SCOTUS has enough sense to uphold the First Amendment. I really think these "discriminated minorities" like homosexuals are scapegoats being used to cause all of use to lose more of our rights.
And atop that, lets say that black people couldn't be bigots, why is that?
Is it due to black people being more open minded than white people?
You have 2 options, either accept that he was a bigot for his actions not his appearance, or admit to the hypocrisy of hill billies believing that black people are worse in every way
so which will you give up first?
Homophobia or racism?
What you said is true about them being a bigot regardless of being well known. The point is that a black store owner wouldn't be labeled a bigot because he wouldn't have drawn the attention to himself the way the white store owner did. The media wouldn't have treated them the same.
Did those bakers have the right to refuse to create a cake with that message on it? According to what I'm hearing from people who say Jake Phillips had no right to refuse to make a specialty cake for the gay couple, no these pro-LGBT bakers had no right. OR they don't want them to have a right to refuse service based on the bakers morals, conscience, or feelings toward the message the customer wants promoted.
Where the pro-LGBT bakers being bigots for refusing him service?
You said,"LGBT bakery was entitled to refuse to bake that cake, just like Jack Phillips was entitled to do what he did."
If they were both entitled to refuse service then why post a meme earlier that says, "He's (Jack Phillips) not a bigot because he's white but because he refused them service because of who they are"???
The cake doesn't have to contain words or designs that are against his beliefs/conscience because the cake itself is the center of a celebration of a ceremony that is against his beliefs/conscience. The cake stands for something, it has meaning just like his creative artistry has meaning. Is that concept really that hard to grasp?
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)
This incident first happened in 2012 before same sex "marriage" was even legal in Colorado. The couple wanted the cake for their ceremony in anther state. He told them he would sale them a premade cake but would not make the custom cake they wanted. So they came back with a news crew and lawsuits ensued.
The government in CO really tried to mess up the baker's life.
The Supreme Court is hearing his case right now.
Alliance Defending Freedom is arguing his case.
I am a straight white male so my social justice victim status in non-existent. Keep standing up for civil liberty.
Also, his business is on private property. Therefore, enforcing his right to refuse business with a customer.
If someone refused my money, I'll take it to their competitor. And tell my friends about how he refused to sell to me and then maybe that'll hurt his business. But, I don't think there should be a law that forces him to make me anything he doesn't want to.
I guess we'll never see that guy make a gay wedding cake.
Life is horrid.
Opposite of not physical, is physical.
He did not want to use his artistic talent to celebrate in something he does not believe in. That is his and every American citizen's protected First Amendment right. He was not refusing to serve them a cake, he offered to sell them a pre-made cake. He was refusing to use his creative artistic talent to celebrate or take part in their marriage.
God says to let the little things go, but the big things you got to stick up for.
On a side note you're masturbating with a buttblug in your butt, to this thread right now aren't you myrian. Lol
Interesting.
Typical radical liberal behavior haha
Basically, you can't really blame someone for attacking someone... if they are right. You don't really have to believe what I say, but it is very important to remember that no matter what you say, there's the other side to the argument.
‘Our Love Life Is None Of Your Business,’ Says Couple Forcing Business Owner To Approve Their Love Life
Cheers...I’m out before the flaming starts. Have fun bashing a guy who isn’t here. :p
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)
Also, is Alliance Defending Freedom defending him on his behalf, or on the behalf of conservative values?
I think ADF looks for cases like Phillips' and takes them on for the individual and the values, rights, and liberties at stake.
What values are the ADF defending in this case then? Would they do it for Muslims?
The baker told the gay couple that he would sell them a premade cake, hence he did not refuse them service. He refused to make them a unique specialty cake in celebration of their same sex "marriage." He was well within his Constitutional rights as a citizen and artist. The state of Colorado messed up.
It is about a state using threats of force of violence to compel a certain type of speech from a citizen.
People who don't understand that have zero idea of the abuses they are attempting to open themselves up to.
The man is an artist and his hand crafted confections are protected free speech.
It was his Christian moral principles that precluded him from lying and saying, "Oh, I'm out of eggs," or using his protected freedom of speech and expression to celebrate in a ceremony that he wanted no part of.
So in your version of "Christianity" what do you do with Scriptures like 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 and Ephesians 5:11?
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)
Do you know why those segregation laws had to be enacted and enforced?
Because the owners of many of those food counters/restaurants/cafeterias would have gladly served people of color. But the leaders of those states (mostly leftists) wanted everyone to segregate and discriminate against blacks! Therefore they enacted and enforced segregation laws.
Just like the owners of the cafeterias would have served people of color, their are secular bakers and even other Christian bakers who will create cakes for same sex weddings.
It is sad that you are trying to associate some individual Christians living and running their businesses in accordance with their sincerely held religious beliefs with state enforced segregation and discrimination.
Why do you want the state represented by this judge to discriminate against the sincere beliefs of this Christian?
what gives the idea that leftists were behind segregation? martin luther king was a liberal. most segregation took place in southern states, where most rightists live now.
not all business owners had to segregate.
That's called a 'red herring' and is totally irrelevant to the conversation.
~what gives the idea that leftists were behind segregation?~
Look up who the governors, senators, representatives, and lawmakers of those segregationist states were at that time and find out for yourself.
~martin luther king was a liberal~
I know that he was a liberal theologian (but that has different connotations) bu if he was a political liberal then why were all the government officials who opposed him and the Civil Rights movement Democrats?
~most segregation took place in southern states~
Most doesn't mean "all" and those states were run by the left.
~where most rightists live now~
"most" lol
i.imgflip.com/249z1k.jpg (click to show)
~not all business owners had to segregate~
Why were there segregation laws in place then if they didn't have to segregate? The laws compelled businesses to segregate whether or not they wanted to, especially in the Democratic run South.
if you look at the map, most of the blue states are in the northern and western states, where there are more people per square mile. secondly, you can't count on an electoral college map to account for population as it runs on a winner-takes-all system.
martin luther king jr's opponents, if they were democrats, were democrats because the democratic party and liberalism aren't connected. people are complicated.
while i don't align with the democratic party at all, i am aware of the political shift, as the democratic party is now supportive for granting civil rights too all americans. rightists will deny the political shift, but still admit it, as they criticize old democrats for hating blacks, but then criticize modern democrats for hating whites.
Ah, yes, the "political shift." So, when did that happen exactly? Was it during the Civil Rights era? i.imgflip.com/23yz6v.gif (click to show)
Are you familiar with the "Dixiecrats"? Do you know how many Dixiecrats left the Democrat party and became and remained Republicans?
The right to refuse service to any customer based off of their defining features is not a right anyone has
Admittedly what they was likely with ill intent, but it's not as if all homosexuals do this and it's not as if they haven't had their rights withheld from them for so long
The problem is as I stated, his right to deny service, which he does not have, freedom of speech is not the same thing as the right to deny service
He didn't refuse service (offered to sell them a pre-made cake) he refused to use his artistry to celebrate in their ceremony.
The state of Colorado used threats of force of violence to compel him to a certain type of speech that he did not consent to (baking and designing the "wedding" cake for the same-sex ceremony.) Colorado broke the law, not the baker.
also displaying an image of blatant situational bias does nothing to help your credibility
The last image was not "situational bias" because I have not attributed anything to the motives of the couple who sued the baker. It is not the LGBT couple or community wielding the gun (or club in this image) it is the government wielding the implements of force. In these cases on the behalf of the LGBT community to compel/coerce a certain type of speech/expression.
Do you believe in freedom of speech and expression? Do you agree that artistry is speech/expression that should be protected?
However, he still doesn't have a right to deny service (or suggest alternatives etc.). As requiring someone to complete a service for payment is not the coercion or prohibition of speech or expression. Ideally, we wouldn't have any reason to have this conversation if the couple had sought to avoid trouble or if the baker hadn't held preference or whatever variable you wish to change.
That is an assertion on your part. It is your subjective opinion. Nothing more.
This man's protected artistic expression/speech was coerced by the State of Colorado. That is why the case is before the Supreme Court.
I addition, what stops me from saying that what you have said is your subjective opinion?
Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)
"It doesn't work......no cake"
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)
How do you know that Jack Phillips has an irrational fear of homosexuals? Which would be the actual definition of "homophobia," instead of being a catch all term for anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle.
Why does disagreeing with that lifestyle and not wanting to celebrate it make him, me, and millions of other American citizens "bigots?"
So, let me get this straight, he was willing to sell them products he had already made but he did not want to use his artistic talents (which are protected under the First Amendment) to celebrate in their ceremony, but he is still a bigot?
: irrational fear of, aversion to, or discrimination against homosexuality or homosexuals
So many people, even the Christians arguing about "religious liberty" don't understand the issue.
The issue is protected speech and expression under the First Amendment which is for everyone, religious or not.
The way the law is set up, due to the civil rights movement, is that a citizen is entitled to a product that a business produces but not an artist's creativity!
He was going to sell them a cake, but he did not have to use his art to celebrate in and honor their "marriage." It is that simple. Colorado broke the law, not the baker.
I never associated ADF with any hate groups. In fact I pointed out that they *wouldn't* defend an openly racist person.
"How do you know that Jack Phillips has an irrational fear of homosexuals? Which would be the actual definition of "homophobia," instead of being a catch all term for anyone who disagrees with the homosexual lifestyle."
I use homophobia in the colloquial sense of aversion to or dislike of gay people.
"Why does disagreeing with that lifestyle and not wanting to celebrate it make him, me, and millions of other American citizens "bigots?""
I don't know what you mean when you call homosexuality a "lifestyle". Do all gay people eat the same foods, do the same hobbies and wear the same clothes? What does that term even mean? Are you engaged in a "heterosexual lifestyle"?
"So, let me get this straight, he was willing to sell them products he had already made but he did not want to use his artistic talents (which are protected under the First Amendment) to celebrate in their ceremony, but he is still a bigot?"
Yes, in my opinion. Let me make a comparison. Imagine if a diner owner said "I'll serve black people coffee, but not an actual meal. They can only have coffee at my diner." He is willing to serve black customers...up to a point, but not treat them the same as everyone else. Would you say that's racist? Or does he love black people, as Jack Phillips says he loves gay people?
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)
This is who we're dealing with.
This ruling came 2-7-18:
i.imgflip.com/245joc.jpg (click to show)
9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, 10 nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.
Secondly, is the slight mention of homosexuals in the Bible a reason not to bake a friggin' cake for them? Let alone the fact that Miller may have still made a cake for the other people listed. May have, not saying she did it.
Try to get this concept: the bible doesn't say anything about reading the newspaper or watching mainstream media news. But if I get worried or angry or in a bad mood every time I watch/read the news and my conscience is not clear because of that reaction to the news, I should avoid it for my conscience sake.
(Not to mention all the lies, deceit, propaganda, and social engendering going on i.e. the reasons I don't watch the news.) ;)
I was that way for 10 years with Rock music. I used to listen to the most outrageous rock music but when I became a Christian I couldn't listen to any rock music, not even "Christian rock." My conscience used to associate the rock n' roll beat with the lifestyle that I lived while I was not a Christian. After 10 years I matured past that "personal conviction" and now I love to listen to rock music, especially when I exercise. I don't listen to the vulgar stuff full of blasphemy and sexual innuendo, but the beat and the music no longer effects my conscience the way it once did.
There are Christians that have no moral qualms or conscience issues about baking cakes or arranging flowers or taking photos for homosexuals. Other Christians who do just want to live their lives and run their businesses with clear consciences.