HAPPENING NOW: Christian Baker Cleared by SCOTUS is Being Attacked AGAIN
The Christian baker who won his case at the SCOTUS for refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple is under attack again.
What’s happening now is targeted harassment by social justice warriors and it’s unfair and needs to stop.
How is this American business owner supposed to run a business when he’s constantly being sued? It’s as if he’s now being attacked for his religious beliefs?
Have these social justice warriors gone into Muslim bakeries and demanded the same thing?
From Daily Wire
On Tuesday, according to The Daily Caller, Christian baker Jack Phillips — who was recently handed a victory at the Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against him on the basis of religion by fining him for not baking a same-sex wedding cake — filed a new lawsuit against the Civil Rights Commission. Why? Because the Civil Rights Commission has apparently issued a preliminary ruling penalizing him for not baking a gender transition celebration cake.
Yes, seriously.
On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips’ shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina’s transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods. In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests…. Three weeks after Phillips won at the high court, the commission issued a probable cause determination, finding there was sufficient evidence to support Scardina’s claim of discrimination.
Phillips has now sued, claiming violation of free exercise, free speech, due process, and equal protection. The lawsuit, by the Alliance Defending Freedom, asks for an injunction against the Civil Rights Commission and sues the head of the commission in her personal capacity.
The possibility of a renewed crackdown on religious business practice was not foreclosed, however, by the prior Supreme Court decision. That decision was narrowly-tailored to avoid the key issue: whether the government can force a business owner to violate his or her religious precepts via antidiscrimination law. The case instead turned on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s openly disparaging language about Christians and their differential treatment of religious bakers from non-religious bakers.
The root issue, however, was far deeper. Justice Kennedy wrote that such an issue would have to wait for another day:
The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided…The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts…
If the political Left should ever gain a fifth vote on the Supreme Court, it will not be long before states across the country – and perhaps a Democratic Congress – would crack down on individual religious businessowners in blatant violation of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of association, speech, and religion. Jack Phillips isn’t out of danger yet.
The FIRST PREMISE in the 1760’s and 1770’s of PROPERTY RIGHTS is THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE and THE RIGHT TO STOP TRESPASSING – the issue raised due to Officers of the King running up months/years’ long TABS for which businesses had to wait on the KING’S PLEASURE to pay the tabs – whether they tabs were for approved charges or not. Done by the British to BOTH break businesses and to control who their clientele was.
BECAUSE OF THE FOUNDATION, that CIVIL RIGHT of PROPERTY OWNERSHIP has never been broken in the USA except during RECONSTRUCTION in the South, the 10 yrs after the Civil War
…WHICH Makes it a Prime Target of Stalinists, Naturally.
He should sue them before the USSC for harassment and menacing, etc….
WHAT IF YOU WENT TO A SURGEON DOCTOR , AND DEMANDED AN ABORTION , WHEN HE CLAIMS , ITS AGAINST HIS RELIGION!!! CAN YOU FORCE THAT DOCTOR TO PERFORM THE ABORTION .??? CAN YOU COMPEL HIM /OR HER TO DO SO??? OF COURSE NOT ., SO WHY SHOULD A BUSINESS OWNER , WHO RUNS A BUSINESS BE COMPELLED TO PERFORM ANY SERVICE THAT IS AGAINST HIS RELIGION ??? COUNTER SUE , WE ARE FED UP WITH THESE NON PRODUCTIVE IDIOTS WHO SHOULD BE ROUNDED UP LIKE CATTLE AND THROWN IN JAIL…. THEY ARE COMMUNIST AND HAVE NOTHING BETTER TO DO THAN TRY TO DESTROY OUR TRADITIONS AND VALUES … FIGHT BACK ……….. DON’T LET THESE PEOPLE TAKE OUR COUNTRY .,
All Jack Phillips had to do was make a stupid cake. But, he would not, and now whatever happens to his business is all his fault. Freedom is not always free, and he has found out the hard way.
BILL….. YOU SEE SIR, IN AMERICA ~ YOU DON’T “HAVE” TO DO ANYTHING!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~!~ WE ARE A FREE COUNTRY … THAT MEANS WE CHOOSE HOW WE WANT TO DIRECT OUR OWN LIVES … AND NOT FORCED TO DO ANYTHING , LIKE COMMUNIST COUNTRIES DO ON THEIR PEOPLE .,
I FOR ONE , AM WILLING AND HAVE FOUGHT FOR THAT BELOVED FREEDOM ., AND IF THESE PEOPLE DO NOT STEP BACK SOON … THEN THEY ARE GOING TO LEARN THAT HELL HATH NO FURY LIKE AN AMERICAN SCORNED ……………. BECAUSE WE ARE GETTING FULL AND FED UP WITH THIS GARBAGE ., SO TREAD EASY ., BECAUSE THE EGG SHELLS ARE CRACKING , AND THE AMERICAN PEOPLE HAVE JUST ABOUT HAD ENOUGH OF ALL THIS BULLSHIT .,
NOBODY , WALKING ON THE FACE OF THIS EARTH , TELLS ME , WHAT TO DO , WHERE TO GO ., HOW TO TALK , WHAT TO SAY , HOW TO LIVE , , WHAT I CAN EAT OR DRINK , AND WHAT ‘TONE ‘ I SHOULD USE .. !!!!
YOU ARE IN THE WRONG COUNTRY , BECAUSE I DON’T TAKE ORDERS FROM ANYONE , EXCEPT MY TWO PARENTS ~
Bill is one of those LIBERAL RINO’S don’t excuse his dumbest reply on the planet!!!!
Sir I am not a RINO, and I am gay too. I would never risk my business like he did. He could have made a deal with another baker and this problem would never happened. But, he chose to be a sanctimonious jerk instead. And BTW I have never been a “Liberal”.
The person wanting the cake could have easily made a deal with another baker on their own and not caused such a stink about it in the first place.
You are wrong! A business owner is NOT compelled to serve anyone he doesn’t want to. No shoes, No service.
You said that like a true [email protected] The 1st Amendment prohibits the type of dictatorship you are trying to impose.
To sum it up…GO TO HELL!!
Spoken like a true Christian, Discrimination is not a form of free speech.
You couldn’t possibly be more wrong.
You keep giving your RIGHTS away for the sake of a LITTLE TEMPORARY PEACE AND SECURITY, and you will get NEITHER – and you will lose the Constitution and your nation and all your Property, to boot.
.
You have the right to study WWII and learn your current mistakes and where they lead.
OUR FOUNDING FATHERS already went through that in EUROPE and learned that when you let the ENEMY come and cull you out, separate you ONE BY ONE, they can pick you off easily, when you are ALONE.
THAT IS WHY THE COLONIALISTS FORMED THE MINUTE MEN!
.
STALIN HAS NO BENEFITS FOR YOU, he only takes what you have away from you. Once you surrender it, you won’t get it back.
.
“They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” ~ Benjamin Franklin, 1775
Benjamin Franklin: In those wretched countries where a man cannot call his tongue his own, he can scarce call anything his own. Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech.
“The Theory of every constitution presupposes as a first principle that the Laws are to be obeyed. There can therefore be no such thing as a “constitutional resistance” to Laws constitutionally enacted.” – – Alexander Hamilton – In a letter to George Washington; September 2nd, 1794.
No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent. – John Jay