Masterpiece Cakeshop owner in court again for denying LGBTQ customer

[marke]

The public accommodation protections prohibited Maurice Bessinger from telling tell Anne Newman to go someplace that serves blacks because of his Christian beliefs that prohibited race-mixing, so Jack Phillips likewise can't tell LGBT people to go someplace that serves your kind because of his homophobia based on religious beliefs. He can be a homophobic as he wants to. He just can't deny equal service to LGBT customers because of it.

Just because laws prohibiting discrimination by race have been passed, that is no reason to assume homosexuals can now force everyone in the country to support sexual perversion just because homosexuals want to force everyone to accept their perverted lifestyles.

 

[marke]

He can dress as Jesus Christ, John the Baptist, Peter, or even Mary Magdalene, as long as he obeys health code, but he cannot deny equal service to LGBT people in his public accommodation business because of his religious beliefs. He could hire Fred Phelps or the Pope as a counter clerk, but he cannot turn away LGBT people seeking custom cakes or even other products that he offers.

There is no law in the country which tells a customer he has the right to force a baker to make him a cake. That is fascist and it is stupid.

 

[Lisa]

Common interpretation of the Constitution: "It does not matter what a business owner or customer believes, he will not be allowed to force his (either Christian or perverted secular sexually perverted) views on others."

This is exactly the legal precedent that was set in Newman v. Piggie Park that ruled on the constitutionality of the public accommodation protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. All customers must be treated equally regardless of their race, creed color. gender, disability, age and, in Colorado and a few other states and cities, their sexual orientation or gender identity. Jack Phillips has the right to stop making custom cakes or to make the bakery a private members-only business where he can choose who can be a customer. He could operate a Christain only bakery with that decision, but he would forfeit the non-members from walking in and buying baked goods out of the case. It is his choice, but it has to be one or the other.

He can also sell the business or he can obey Matthew 7:12 as followers of Jesus are commanded to do. Would that passage of the Bible also be infringing on his religious belief?

In everything, then, do to others as you would have them do to you. For this is the essence of the Law and the Prophets.

You really should try to stop this hysterical nonsense because I'm about to choke on my cup of tea. :lol:

 

[Lisa]

Just because laws prohibiting discrimination by race have been passed, that is no reason to assume homosexuals can now force everyone in the country to support sexual perversion just because homosexuals want to force everyone to accept their perverted lifestyles.

Were black and interracial people forcing the acceptance of race-mixing on bigoted business owners?

LGBT people don't want you in their life, or approving of their relationship/s. It's just baking a cake.

 

[Lisa]

There is no law in the country that tells a customer he has the right to force a baker to make him a cake. That is fascist and it is stupid.

He does if he operates a public accommodation business that makes custom cakes and the customer has the ability to pay for it.

You haven't gotten over the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act more than 50 years ago because you are recycling the very same arguments that were used to defend "Whites-Only" businesses.

 

[Fishking]

Public accommodation laws are pretty clear. If you want to open your business to the public, you have to open it to the public. If you don't, you can hand select your clientele by any metric you choose. You don't get to... have your cake and eat it too.

1. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

2. They actually do serve everyone, they just don't make custom cakes for a certain message. In other words, they would've made a regular birthday cake for this person but that wasn't good enough. They wanted a specific style of cake and they went to lengths to even explain why they wanted it that way. This was done with the purpose of antagonizing the individual.

On a moral note, there's literally nothing in the bible about the alleged sin of baking a cake for a homosexual and this guy is no different than a bigot who would hang a "No negroes" sign in front of his shop. Interacting with black people was also once claimed to be a violation of their religion by bigoted Christians. I'm glad we stopped tolerating that bull****.

As demonstrated in point #2 above, no, it is not eh same as "No Negroes". Also, the Bible doesn't say anything about baking cakes but it does state that homosexual acts are wrong and therefor the baker doesn't want to make a cake that celebrates something that his beliefs states is a sin. It's not rocket surgery here, so I fail to see how you're confused.

 

[Lisa]

1. The Supreme Court disagrees with you.

2. They actually do serve everyone, they just don't make custom cakes for a certain message. In other words, they would've made a regular birthday cake for this person but that wasn't good enough. They wanted a specific style of cake and they went to lengths to even explain why they wanted it that way. This was done with the purpose of antagonizing the individual.



As demonstrated in point #2 above, no, it is not eh same as "No Negroes". Also, the Bible doesn't say anything about baking cakes but it does state that homosexual acts are wrong and therefore the baker doesn't want to make a cake that celebrates something that his beliefs states are a sin. It's not rocket surgery here, so I fail to see how you're confused.

Your first claim is very wrong because if he claims to make custom cakes then he cannot limit the range of freedom permitted to one group of customers how custom their cake can be as long as the cake is not outside of reasonable decency good taste. He needs to prove that what the customer was seeking was outside of decency and would not be socially acceptable at any other bakery regardless of the owner's social or religious beliefs.

Maurice Bessinger believed that race mixing was a sin, but that wasn't persuasive to the SCOTUS when it voted 9-0 against him.

 

[Fishking]

Your first claim is very wrong because if he claims to make custom cakes then he cannot limit the range of freedom permitted to one group of customers how custom their cake can be as long as the cake is not outside of reasonable decency good taste. He needs to prove that what the customer was seeking was outside of decency and would not be socially acceptable at any other bakery regardless of the owner's social or religious beliefs.

No he doesn't, and the Supreme Court disagrees with you. There was literally a case over this and it's over.

Maurice Bessinger believed that race mixing was a sin, but that wasn't persuasive to the SCOTUS when it voted 9-0 against him.

Red herring fallacy. The case above is a different case and therefor hold no relevancy.

 

[Lisa]

No he doesn't, and the Supreme Court disagrees with you. There was literally a case over this and it's over.



Red herring fallacy. The case above is a different case and therefor holds no relevance.

The SCOTUS in Masterpiece Cake Shop didn't rule on the major issue of whether he could deny equal service to LGBT people. They only ruled that the Colorado enforcement board should have treated his religious beliefs with respect instead of calling him a religious bigot. The other issue was kicked down the road. Read the last paragraph of the decision for proof, and how they would have ruled if they did decide on that issue. Spoiler alert, it wasn't in his favor.

The background legal precedent is the very same. Bessinger cited his religious beliefs were a valid reason to ignore the public accommodation clause protections and refuse to serve black and interracial customers, just as Jack Phillips is citing his religious beliefs as a reason not to serve LGBT customers equally with heterosexuals and Christians.

 

[marke]

This is exactly the legal precedent that was set in Newman v. Piggie Park that ruled on the constitutionality of the public accommodation protections in the 1964 Civil Rights Act. All customers must be treated equally regardless of their race, creed color. gender, disability, age and, in Colorado and a few other states and cities, their sexual orientation or gender identity. Jack Phillips has the right to stop making custom cakes or to make the bakery a private members-only business where he can choose who can be a customer. He could operate a Christain only bakery with that decision, but he would forfeit the non-members from walking in and buying baked goods out of the case. It is his choice, but it has to be one or the other.

If some Christian wanted to claim refusing service to blacks was a Biblical conviction then he may have a fight on his hands, just like if someone claimed approval of homosexuality was a religious conviction would have a fight on his hands. But a baker who believes God disapproves of participation in group-think atheistic approval of homosexuality has an excellent case for asking homosexuals to find someone else to make their homosexual cakes. Homosexuals have no more right to force Christians to publicly approve of their lifestyle than do child sex perverts. If a baker refuses to serve child sex perverts for religious reasons then the Constitution guarantees the man freedom to exercise his religious convictions against serving child sex perverts.

He can also sell the business or he can obey Matthew 7:12 as followers of Jesus are commanded to do. Would that passage of the Bible also be infringing on his religious belief?
You really should try to stop this hysterical nonsense because I'm about to choke on my cup of tea. :lol:

 

[marke]

Were black and interracial people forcing the acceptance of race-mixing on bigoted business owners?

LGBT people don't want you in their life, or approving of their relationship/s. It's just baking a cake.

Homosexuals are sex perverts. If a Christian refuses to serve sex perverts because of their perversion then they are still free to go elsewhwere, no harm done.

 

[marke]

He does if he operates a public accommodation business that makes custom cakes and the customer has the ability to pay for it.

You haven't gotten over the passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act more than 50 years ago because you are recycling the very same arguments that were used to defend "Whites-Only" businesses.

The 1964 Civil Rights Act does not guarantee rapists the right to force Christians to show public support for rapists, and neither does the act support homosexual brutality towards Christians opposed to public support for sexual perversion.

 

[Lisa]

If some Christian wanted to claim refusing service to blacks was a Biblical conviction then he may have a fight on his hands, just like if someone claimed approval of homosexuality was a religious conviction would have a fight on his hands. But a baker who believes God disapproves of participation in group-think atheistic approval of homosexuality has an excellent case for asking homosexuals to find someone else to make their homosexual cakes. Homosexuals have no more right to force Christians to publicly approve of their lifestyle than do child sex perverts. If a baker refuses to serve child sex perverts for religious reasons then the Constitution guarantees the man freedom to exercise his religious convictions against serving child sex perverts.

I'm tired of explaining this to you, often ever other day.

I have explained this to you numerous times that when you choose to open a public accommodation business your religious exercise does not permit you to discriminate. if serving people who have different religious beliefs or have relationships that are different from your you probably should not open a business that is constitutionally required to serve others regardless of your religious beliefs. They aren't asking you to approve of anything, so stop making that farcical claim.

 

[jghiretire]

Nobody should be forced to do business they don't want to do. The people pushing this lawsuit are scumbags looking for attention.

So they get their way and don't have to serve LGBTQ people - then what?? POC??? Liberals?? Women?? Poor people??
Slippery slope.
Thought you all were concerned about your rights - like - "I don't need to wear no stinkin' mask".

 

[Lisa]

The 1964 Civil Rights Act does not guarantee rapists the right to force Christians to show public support for rapists, and neither does the act support homosexual brutality towards Christians opposed to public support for sexual perversion.

Your religious beliefs do not determine what is or isn't a crime.

There is no such thing as homosexual brutality and not all Christians are judgement hypocritical homophobic bigots.

Rape is a crime and is usually a felony, unlike being black, interracial or lesbian, gay, bi or transgender. Equal service for all in a public business is not supporting anything except the US Constitution and a market economy.

 

[Old 'N Chill]

I'm tired of explaining this to you, often ever other day.

I have explained this to you numerous times that when you choose to open a public accommodation business your religious exercise does not permit you to discriminate. if serving people who have different religious beliefs or have relationships that are different from your you probably should not open a business that is constitutionally required to serve others regardless of your religious beliefs. They aren't asking you to approve of anything, so stop making that farcical claim.

I admire your patience Lisa.

 

[Lisa]

Homosexuals are sex perverts. If a Christian refuses to serve sex perverts because of their perversion then they are still free to go elsewhwere, no harm done.

LGBT are not perverts. Jesus didn't teach that.

Your argument was previously used to deny black and interracial people equal service by racists. They were told to go someplace that served their kind, just as you are saying. You are no better than Maurice Bessinger.

 

[Lisa]

I admire your patience Lisa.

He is going to owe me a new keyboard and a manicure. If I was really talented he would owe me a pedicure because I could type with my toes, but I can barely type with my fingers. If I posted what it looked like when I write it instead of what it looks like after Grammarly gets done editing it you would swear it wasn't in English.

BTW, Grammarly doesn't recognize their own name in the spell checker. :lamo

 

[Aberration]

You believe we dont have freedom from religion???

I don’t.

 

[Aberration]

That wasn't the point of that quote. The quote was posted to prove that the US was not and never founded as a Christian country. The fact that Jefferson mentions Infidels of every denomination proves that fact beyond a shadow of a doubt that non-belief is an included right.

Jefferson's famous letter to the Danbury Baptists is proof of the separation of church and state. This letter explains what the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amendment does.



Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

I never argued the US was founded on Christianity, nor have I argued you don’t have a right to believe in nothing. [emoji2369]

 

[Lisa]

I don’t.

You are very wrong. The government is to be absolutely neutral on the issue of religion and religious belief at all levels of the government. Atheism is absolutely a protected religious stance and we cannot be forced to obey the religious beliefs of others because that would be a violation of our Free Exercise rights and the separation of church and state as required by the Establishment Clause, both of which are part of the First Amendment because the state would be supporting religious belief over non-belief and supporting one religion over the others.

 

[marke]

I'm tired of explaining this to you, often ever other day.

I have explained this to you numerous times that when you choose to open a public accommodation business your religious exercise does not permit you to discriminate. if serving people who have different religious beliefs or have relationships that are different from your you probably should not open a business that is constitutionally required to serve others regardless of your religious beliefs. They aren't asking you to approve of anything, so stop making that farcical claim.

You say I cannot descriminate against rapists and sex perverts and I say you don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Lisa]

I never argued the US was founded on Christianity, nor have I argued you don’t have a right to believe in nothing. [emoji2369]

He will lose because if we allow him to do it that would put the public accommodation concept of equal service in jeopardy for all people by the precedent it would set. The SCOTUS justices hinted at that idea in the last paragraph of the Masterpiece Cake Shop decision.

 

[marke]

Your religious beliefs do not determine what is or isn't a crime.

There is no such thing as homosexual brutality and not all Christians are judgement hypocritical homophobic bigots.

Rape is a crime and is usually a felony, unlike being black, interracial or lesbian, gay, bi or transgender. Equal service for all in a public business is not supporting anything except the US Constitution and a market economy.

If a homosexual thug says, "No, I will not go somewhere else to get my homosex cake made, I want you to do it because you are a Christian and I want to destroy you for not accepting homosexuality as a good and healthy practice," then that thug is a brutal fascist who wants to cram acceptance of his sexual perversion down the throats of Christians.

 

[Lisa]

You say I cannot descriminate against rapists and sex perverts and I say you don't know what you are talking about.

If a rapist or pedophile came into his shop to buy a birthday cake for their adult spouse he could not deny them equal service, as long as they obeyed all other laws.