BreakPoint: Religious Freedom’s Roe v Wade?

Make the Case for Liberty

We’ll be talking a lot on BreakPoint about the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips. Why? Because religious freedom hangs in the balance.

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The stakes could not be higher. In fact, as Ed Stetzer and I said recently on “BreakPoint This Week,” this may be the religious freedom equivalent of Roe v Wade.

What the media and LGBT activists are telling the world is that this case is about a baker who uses his religious beliefs as a cover to discriminate against people. But that, my friends, is baloney.

Here are the facts. For 23 years, Jack Phillips, a Christian and owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, gladly served all people—young and old, black and white, gay and straight. But in 2012, two men entered the shop and asked Phillips to make a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony. Phillips declined, because his faith would not allow him to send the message through his art that he approved of same-sex “weddings.” So he offered the men any pre-made cake in the shop or even any other baked good in his shop.

But the men got angry and left.

Soon Jack was receiving hate mail and threatening phone calls. He was hauled before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and fined. Taking a page out of the Chinese Communist playbook, the commission “ordered Jack and his staff to design cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations, go through a ‘re-education’ program, implement new policies to comply with the commission’s order, and file quarterly ‘compliance’ reports for two years to show that Jack has completely eliminated his religious beliefs from his business.”

And so in the fall, the Supreme Court will hear the case. It will either find a balance between the rights of religious believers and the public-accommodation rights of gays, or, heaven forbid, it will rule that the price of citizenship is the forfeiture of faith.

Now all of this sounds apocalyptic, but note this. Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely be the swing vote in this case. While he has ruled on the side of religious institutions recently, for nearly 30 years now, he has ruled that anti-sodomy laws, anti-discrimination laws that exclude gays, denying gays the right to marry—all of these things amount to “animus” against homosexuals and deprive them of dignity.

So, in other words, if you disapprove of gay marriage, that means you aren’t voicing a neutral opinion—you’re being hostile to gay people. You, then, to use the left’s favorite label, are a hater.

So what can we do now that it’s in the hands of the Supreme Court? Can we actually do anything to influence the outcome of this case? Here’s what Chuck Colson had to say about this back in 2012:

The textbook answer, of course, is no: The Court consists of judges who’ve been appointed for life, who are not subject to public opinion; their supreme obligation is to the Constitution of the United States.

That’s the way it is supposed to be.  In practice, it doesn’t work that way. The Supreme Court justices do read the newspapers; they know what the public will and won’t accept.

What this means is that you and I have to be heard. Hit Facebook, get your pastor to speak out about the Jack Phillips case. Get the facts out there.

Here’s Chuck Colson again, referring to yet another case years ago before the Court, with another suggestion:

Will you join in a fast and prayer about this issue? Will you pray for the members of the Court? And will you also let your voices be heard? Letters to the editor and to congressmen can create a public debate that does make a difference. We need to raise a groundswell of protest that will sweep across this country and will be felt right here—in the court chambers in Washington, D.C.

Amen. Please join us at BreakPoint. We’ll keep talking about the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, because it’s really that important.

 

Religious Freedom’s Roe v Wade? Make the Case for Liberty

John and Chuck both encourage us to let our voices be heard through letters to the editor, social media channels, as well as neighborhood conversations. So present the facts and explain the consequences, but especially pray for religious freedom to be the priority in the minds of our Supreme Court justices.

 

Resources

BreakPoint This Week: Religious Freedom's Roe v. Wade?
  • John Stonestreet, Ed Stetzer | BreakPoint.org | July 22, 2017
How Will the Court Decide?: Arguments on Obamacare
  • Chuck Colson | BreakPoint.org | March 27, 2012
Spiritual Wars, Spiritual Weapons: Praying for the Supreme Court
  • Chuck Colson |BreakPoint.org | April 5, 2000

Comment Policy: Commenters are welcome to argue all points of view, but they are asked to do it civilly and respectfully. Comments that call names, insult other people or groups, use profanity or obscenity, repeat the same points over and over, or make personal remarks about other commenters will be deleted. After multiple infractions, commenters may be banned.

  • Phoenix1977

    “Here are the facts. For 23 years, Jack Phillips, a Christian and owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop, gladly served all people—young and old, black and white, gay and straight. But in 2012, two men entered the shop and asked Phillips to make a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony. Phillips declined, because his faith would not allow him to send the message through his art that he approved of same-sex “weddings.” So he offered the men any pre-made cake in the shop or even any other baked good in his shop.”
    No, this is the one fact. Jack Phillips refuses to sell the same products and services to same-sex couples as he offers to sell to opposite-sex couples. That is discrimination. Everything else only clouds the issue.

    “Justice Anthony Kennedy will likely be the swing vote in this case.”
    Yes, he could be. But if we look at Neil Gorsuch Anthony Kennedy might not be needed as a swing vote at all. Neil Gorsuch has supported LGBT rights without falter during his career so it’s very well possible the ruling be 6-3 instead of the expected 5-4.

    “What this means is that you and I have to be heard. Hit Facebook, get your pastor to speak out about the Jack Phillips case. Get the facts out there.”
    Please do. But at least get the REAL facts out there, how Jack Phillips refuses to sell the same products to different people.

    “It will either find a balance between the rights of religious believers and the public-accommodation rights of gays, or, heaven forbid, it will rule that the price of citizenship is the forfeiture of faith.”
    There is no balance or middle ground possible. Either the LGBT community wins or reigious conservatives win. The time of trying to find a middle ground is passed. Because, even if the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Jack Phillips, the LGBT community still has a powerful ace up it’s sleeve: the economic ace. With 64% of the Americans being supportive of same-sex marriage (according to the conservative Gallup polls, liberal polls score as high as 90%) the LGBT community can still call for a boycot, making sure Jack Phillips will not discriminate against anyone ever again.

    • Just One Voice

      “There is no balance or middle ground possible.”

      I realize you were badly burned in your religious past. But I still hope the day comes when you can find SOME kind of peaceful ground between two points of view; not just the winners/losers, right/wrong, alive/dead.

      Just curious, do you have nothing but a death wish for all Christians and anyone who does not agree with LGBTQ practices? Your comment language sounds like it quite often. I also recall a time where you said even if all Christians died tomorrow it would not be fast enough for you.

      Keep on keepin’ on.

      • Phoenix1977

        This case is in hands of the courts. That, by definition, excludes the possibility of a middle ground. This case will have one side as a winner and one as a loser. That’s the nature of taking a case to court.

        I said: “If the Christian religion was dead tomorrow it would not be fast enough for me” or something like that. I’m not in the game of wishing people dead. I’ll leave that to other people.

        Also, don’t blame the LGBT community for no longer wishing to find the middle ground. We tried for centuries and never got any further than being kicked while we were down. So we have little interest anymore in finding a compromise, also because we are winning here.

        • Just One Voice

          Okay, just askin’. Heh, speaking for myself, you certainly don’t have to get defensive against anything I say. I seek to understand people, but I almost never try to argue or debate, (per 2 Timothy 2:23-26 for anyone else reading this.)

          I just can’t help but notice that, no matter what anyone says on here, you seem to be the one who really zeroes in on the language of win/lose, live/die, etc. Just look at your last sentence.

          But you did answer my question, so thank you. And yeah, now that I think about it, that’s very true about the nature of taking something to court.

          Anyway, I bow out. See you on the next thread 🙂

          • Scott

            Just One Voice, the 2 Timothy 2:23-26 is a good verse! Thank you. : – )

            I just can’t seem to get past 1 Peter 3:15. I also really like Colossians 4:6… and hope I do (at least) an okay job of adhering to it. : – )

          • Just One Voice

            Also great verses Scott!!

            It’s a hard balance for me to find; being ready to make a defense, but doing it with all patience, gentleness, wisdom, etc.

          • Scott

            Thank you!

          • Zarm

            I know exactly what you mean; 2 Timothy 2:23-26 encapsulates my greatest struggle perfectly; it’s why I’m off Facebook, off Quora, and often consider leaving here. It’s so easy to get into a debate (and even to draw battle lines and ‘pick a hill to die on’) that have nothing to do with furthering the kingdom and everything to do with winning an argument on some point of theology or other- which the Bible flat-out *tells* us will appear to be foolishness to anyone who isn’t in Christ. Talk about a futile effort! I just wish it weren’t such an easy trap to fall into.

          • Just One Voice

            Me too Zarm!!

        • Scott

          “The only thing he truly did was making sure his administration will be tied in court for the remainder of his presidency. Or did he actually think the LGBT community would simply accept this?”

          Yes… for every action there is a reaction. : – )

          “Also, don’t blame the LGBT community for no longer wishing to find the middle ground. We tried for centuries and never got any further than being kicked while we were down. So we have little interest anymore in finding a compromise, also because we are winning here.”

          This perpetuates the paradox we defined earlier… I think Steve identified this as a “dark path” as well. You are so eager and willing to suppress others who do not believe as you do, that you fail to see the tragic ending. Unless you are willing to look for space to coexist, you are asking for war. Sometime I wonder if you are letting your anger define you? This will also lead you down a dark path Phoenix and I hope and pray for peace in your heart… despite our fundamental differences, I do care about you.

          I will continue to look for that space that would allow you, I and Jack Phillips to live in peace, whether you will or not.

          • Phoenix1977

            The LGBT community didn’t want to take that “dark path”. We were forced onto it. We were forced to fight for our right to be, through the courts, every step of the way. Christians could have just let us be decades ago and we would not be in the situation we are on now.

            Yes, every action has an equal but opposite reaction. This is our reaction to the centuries of oppression we have endured. Our reaction towards Christian actions.

          • Scott

            “Christians could have just let us be decades ago and we would not be in the situation we are on now”

            There is truth to this and I wouldn’t argue that some Christians have acted less than Christlike. Most of the Christians I know are not like that though.

    • Scott

      “No, this is the one fact. Jack Phillips refuses to sell the same products and services to same-sex couples as he offers to sell to opposite-sex couples. That is discrimination. Everything else only clouds the issue.”

      Your statement simply is not true.

      If Jack’s sign on the front of his business read “Christian Wedding Cakes,” we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. Business owners refuse to take on new business every day for many different reasons. You cannot force a Christian artist to be commissioned to paint a same-sex couples portrait… any more that you can force them to paint any other subject matter. Artists are (and should be) allowed to refuse subject matter based on their conscience.

      • Phoenix1977

        If Jack Phillips would advertise with “Christian wedding cakes” we would still have this conversation, simply because the law does not recognize “Christian weddings”. It only recognizes legal weddings, as we already discussed before.

        And yes, business owners refuse business quite often, most of the time because it conflicts with their schedule or previous sealed deals. If Jack Phillips had said that everything would have been fine. Until someone realises it’s always the same-sex couple getting turned down after which they send in an opposite-sex couple to test that theory, that is.

        And you might think cake decorating is an art form and I might even agree with you. However, the law does not recognize it as an art form so, in the eyes of the law, Jack Phillips is not an artist.

        • Scott

          “the law does not recognize “Christian weddings”. It only recognizes legal weddings, as we already discussed before.”

          You and I have different viewpoints here so I’m hoping we can agree to disagree. : – )

          You might be right. If Jack Phillips had used a scheduling excuse (or something like it) to refuse the sale, we probably wouldn’t be talking about it. But it would have been a lie, and those are never good.

          It will be interesting to see whether or not the Supreme Court sees Jack as an artist or not. His defense has a good case for that and the law cannot discern an artist based on their desired medium.

          • Phoenix1977

            “You and I have different viewpoints here so I’m hoping we can agree to disagree. : – )”
            In this case we can’t. For the law there is only one marriage and the law leaves no room for interpretation there. So there is no room for the Supreme Court to find any leeway.

            Acually, in order to consider something art it had to meet certain criteria. One of them being the art piece must be able to last for a longer period of time. A cake can therefor never be considered a piece of art.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            The art piece has to last? Don’t tell Banksy that. 🙂

    • FormerLiberalnowConservative

      He did not sell the same products to same sex couples as opposite sex couples as the terms of doing business dictated that all those who wish to do business abide by the terms. The terms of doing business and the conditions of the sale dictated all wedding cakes are opposite sexed couples only. The same sex couple refuse to abide by the terms.

      By the way our system always allowed you to discriminate against anyone not adhering to the terms of doing business and the conditions of the sale. You may discriminate against those not adhering to the dress code of your business and refuse the service. You may discriminate against those who use American Express if you do not accept that card.

      How come a food store is not guilty of discrimination against Jewish people if it does not offer Kosher food? Discrimination against Jewish people never meant that you had to offer a service you did not offer or that they dictate the terms of the sale. Based on your flawed logic a photographer is guilty of discriminating and violation of public accommodation laws if you refuse to do pornography. How can a photographer not do porn yet a bakery has to perform service he or she does not want.

      You argue a phony public accommodation rights of the homosexuals. Because it is the homosexuals and they only who demand that public accommodation laws mean they dictate the terms of doing business while no other American has that right.

      • Phoenix1977

        I already answered these point in another subject and don’t really feel like repeating myself.

  • Zarm

    It comes down, I think, to two things- whether shop owners are allowed to act on their conscience when it comes to commissions or forced to accept every special order proposed or requested on them regardless of content, and whether an artist refusing to accept a special commission to create a new product constitutes a denial of service (or whether the ability to accept or decline special requests for events is an artist’s basic right).

    • Scott

      I think your post is really accurate and I believe this is the heart of the issue. Good insight, thanks.

    • Phoenix1977

      First of all, cake decorating is not recognized as an art form and therefor Jack Phillips is not considered an artist.

      Second, if you seel a product, for the sake of argument custom designed wedding cakes you are required by law, in 32 states, to sell that product to everyone. The fact you are willing to sell any other product but that particular one is of no consequence. The refusal to sell that one product to everyone requesting is, is discriminatory and prohibited in 32 states. And, quite likely, after the Supreme Court’s ruling, in all 50 states.

      • ConvenientOmissions

        Is the one product sold “custom designed wedding cakes for same sex people in a state that, at the time didn’t allow legal same sex marriages”? If so, you might have a point to build off of.

      • FormerLiberalnowConservative

        You are so wrong. Cake decorating is a form of free speech. You are printing a message on that cake. Our freedom of speech laws and freedom of religion laws are part of our freedoms to decline to participate in speech we oppose.
        If I am conservative I may decline to bake a cake with speech and expressions that are liberal. Selling that product to everyone never meant that anyone now dictates the terms of doing business and can force me to print speech that I oppose.

        This baker does sell cakes to everyone including the sodomites. He refused to sell a CUSTOM DESIGNED WEDDING CAKE WITH SPEECH THAT HE OPPOSES AND VIOLATES HIS RELIGION !!!!!!!!!!! He was willing to sell any cake already in there to them with no messages on it.

        • Phoenix1977

          “He was willing to sell any cake already in there to them with no messages on it.”
          Meaning he was discriminating against a gay couple, which is prohibited by the law in the state of Colorado, because he was willing to sell the same product to a straight couple. So thank you for proving my case.

          • FormerLiberalnowConservative

            I proved your case wrong and you are a liar. He was willing to sell any cake in there no matter your sexuality so he did discriminate against any couple or anyone since they were allowed to buy a non decorated cake.

          • Gina Dalfonzo

            I told you twice to moderate your tone. Enough. You’re banned.

          • Phoenix1977

            Except the custom desgined ones, which means he was not willing to sell “any cake” to everyone.

          • Scott

            Except the cake the same-sex couple was requesting had not been made. Jack Phillips is allowed to accept or refuse the terms of the requested commission as it requires his artistic skills to complete. And the couple is free to seek another artist to fulfill their request.

            Again, you can’t force someone to do (in this case create) something against their will or conscience.

          • Phoenix1977

            “Except the cake the same-sex couple was requesting had not been made.”
            Because Phillips refused to make it, while he was perfectly willing to make a cake for another couple to be maried who happened to be straight.

            “as it requires his artistic skills to complete”
            And so we are back at the artist argument. As I said before, cake decorating has not been recognized as an art form by the courts and therefor Jack Phillips cannot state he is an artist.

            “Again, you can’t force someone to do (in this case create) something against their will or conscience.”
            I suggest you study Loving vs. Virginia. The Supreme Court clearly stated the freedom of religion is not absolute and cannot be used as an excuse to break the law. I’d say this applies perfectly in this case.

      • Zarm

        But the question is not TO whom you’ll sell, but what you will design a cake FOR. There is not any indication that Phillips would refuse to sell a custom-designed cake for a different event to these clients, or that he would design a cake for this same event (a same-sex marriage) to sell to heterosexual clients. The issue is not who is buying, but the content of the creation he is being asked to make.

        This issue is constantly confused as being about a refusal to serve the client; it is not, as numerous alternate products were offered to the clients, for the same function. The issue here is whether an artist (or other craftsman) should be forced to accept a special order to create a product in support of something they morally disagree with if they are unwilling, regardless of who is ordering.

        And while it is a tired old cliche in this argument by now, the reverse applies; if the baker was gay, and being asked to create a cake decorated with Bible verses that condemn homosexuality as a sin, ought they be forced to make that cake, despite their own moral objection to it? Or ought they have the freedom to refuse that commission?

        • Phoenix1977

          “This issue is constantly confused as being about a refusal to serve the client”
          It’s not about refusal to serve a client. It’s about refusal to treat 2 clients the same, as the law dictates, because you believe they are not equal. And that argument was already eliminated in 1967 (Loving vs. Virginia).

          “The issue here is whether an artist (or other craftsman) should be forced to accept a special order to create a product in support of something they morally disagree with if they are unwilling, regardless of who is ordering.”
          That is indeed the issue, in relation to the fact a craftsman is willing to sell the exact same product to another client who he can or is willing to identify with.

          “if the baker was gay, and being asked to create a cake decorated with Bible verses that condemn homosexuality as a sin, ought they be forced to make that cake, despite their own moral objection to it?”
          As long as that baker does not sell discriminatory cakes to anyone the answer is no. Actually, it has already been ruled by the courts bakers cannot be forced to sell a cake with discriminatory texts on them, like, for example, verses from Leviticus (because those verses are deemed to be discriminatory towards gay people). However, being forced to make cakes for a same-seks wedding is the opposite of being discriminatory and therefor do not fall under the same ruling.

          • Zarm

            “It’s about refusal to treat 2 clients the same, as the law dictates, because you believe they are not equal.”
            Once again, no it is not. The clients were not treated in any way differently. The requested product was refused based on the nature of the event it supported, not the clients requesting it.

            “That is indeed the issue, in relation to the fact a craftsman is willing to sell the exact same product to another client who he can or is willing to identify with.”
            Incorrect. There is no evidence that Phillips was willing to sell cakes celebrating homosexual marriage to anyone, regardless of orientation, or unwilling to sell cakes celebrating other events to any clients (these included).

            “If Jack Phillips is willing to sell a custom designed wedding cake to an opposite-seks couple he is also required by Colorado law to do the same for a same-seks couple. It can’t be easier or clearer than that.”
            He is willing to sell a custom-designed wedding cake to either couple. He’s just not willing to create one in support of what, according to his belief system, is not an actual wedding, but a legal/cultural invention that uses the same name.

            The difference lies in the fact that you consider a homosexual wedding and a heterosexual wedding to be the same thing; two variations of the same ceremony. Repeatedly referring to a gay wedding cake as the same product as a traditional wedding cake operates off of a presupposition that both entities are the same; that is a subjective worldview, and one not shared by many. They celebrate two entirely (and based on Philips religion, diametrically-opposed) unions. One did not even exist before the turn of the century, the other has several thousand years of history and tradition behind it, and was the sole definition of ‘wedding cake’ when Philips entered the business. To recognize them as distinct entities is not to judge the relative merit or value as either, but to claim that this is discrimination because ‘Both events are the same thing with no objective or quantifiable difference and thus need to automatically be considered the same product and thus automatically become considered refusal to make the same product for different customers’ requires an assumption of universality and equivalency that assumes a subjective worldview is objective truth and binding to all cultures, beliefs, and creeds the moment that it is proposed.

          • Phoenix1977

            “He is willing to sell a custom-designed wedding cake to either couple. He’s just not willing to create one in support of what, according to his belief system, is not an actual wedding, but a legal/cultural invention that uses the same name.”
            Except the law does not agree on that and the law is all that matters in court. For the law there is no difference between an opposite-sex wedding and a same-sex wedding. And the Supreme Court already ruled in 1967 (Loving vs. Virginia) that religious believes are not sufficient grounds to discriminate against people if the law grants them equal rights.

          • Scott

            “For the law there is no difference between an opposite-sex wedding and a same-sex wedding.”

            Both are equal (under the law), both are different.

            “And the Supreme Court already ruled in 1967 (Loving vs. Virginia) that religious believes are not sufficient grounds to discriminate against people if the law grants them equal rights.”

            A person’s conscious is still considered free in our country. If two parties cannot agree on the terms of a provided service based on conscientious objection, either has the right to refuse the service.

          • Phoenix1977

            “If two parties cannot agree on the terms of a provided service based on conscientious objection, either has the right to refuse the service.”
            Not if those terms violate the law.

          • Zarm

            The crux of the argument now seems to be ‘is a cake
            celebrating traditional marriage and a cake celebrating same-sex marriage the
            same thing (thus making the refusal to accept the commission for one a
            discrimination), or are they separate products (thus making the willingness to
            make one for anyone and the other for no-one an entirely legitimate difference)?’

            The difficulty here is that proponents of same-sex marriage
            see it and traditional marriage as the same thing, while those on the opposite
            side see two entirely different entities that both use the same word but are
            diametrically oppositional in nature. So the question becomes, whose standard
            is such an issue to be judged on? Does the existence of a legal creation of
            same-sex marriage automatically carry with it a moral compulsion that overrides
            the individuals beliefs and ‘retcons’ these two things half of society views as
            different into being the same thing, even in terms of moral objection by the
            individual- or is the individuals objection and right to act by conscience
            defined by their own beliefs about the morality of the issue, regardless of
            what legal entity has been created?

            In short, if you object to something but I get the courts to
            say its okay, does that legal victory automatically steamroll your moral
            position, or are you still free to hold (and act on) a differing belief? To use
            another example- let’s say the court found those verses from Leviticus NOT to
            be hateful (I certainly don’t believe they are); in such a case, does that mean
            that a homosexual baker would/should be told ‘since the law finds them okay,
            you are not allowed to have a moral objection to them anymore,’ or would they
            still be free to dissent because even though the law has found them acceptable,
            their own personal standards still find them to be objectionable? In short,
            does the existence of a legal go-ahead remove the right of an individual to recognize
            this content as different and objectionable, compared to a cake bearing other
            verses?

            Or, to use a different example, if the baker was atheistic,
            and simply objected to any biblical verses and was requested to decorate a cake
            proclaiming the existence and authority of God, completely removed from any
            controversial political issues or Levitical content… should they be compelled
            to, over their objections, because they offer cakes with different messages or literary
            quotes?

          • Phoenix1977

            The law no longer acknowledges a difference between a same-seks marriage and a “traditional” marriage. As a result there is, legally, also no difference between a same-seks wedding and a “traditional” one. So yes, a wedding cake for a same-seks wedding and a “traditional” wedding are the same product.
            The crux is whether or not you sell the same products to all people. If you don’t print religious verses of any type on whatever piece of pastry you are okay, just as you are if you refrain from making political comments on cakes or T-shirts. So if you refuse to support both Democrats and Republicans no one can accuse you of discrimination, just as no religious person can accues you of that if you simply don’t create cakes like that for any religion.
            And that is the problem in the case of Jack Phillips: he doesn’t refuse to make wedding cakes for opposite-sex couples while he does refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples. So he refuses to sell the same product to everyone.

        • FormerLiberalnowConservative

          The other question is not whom you’d sell but are you required to sell to one who is not meeting the terms. How come I can refuse to sell to anyone not meeting the dress code of my business but if a homosexual violates it, now I am guilty.

          He also makes the false claim of not treating 2 clients the same. One client follows the rules the other did not. Want to be treated the same the follow the same rules as everyone else.
          Equality applies only to people and not human circumstances, outcomes, or results. Do we not treat smokers and non smokers differently? Do not some businesses chose to not accept American Express?

      • Zarm

        To break it down a little (hopefully removing some of the
        terms in favor of a straight-up diagram will clarify, rather than confuse…), when
        heterosexual couples (A) came in, Phillips accepted commissions to create custom
        cakes celebrating traditional marriage (B), or was willing to sell pre-made
        cakes and other products of his shop (C). When a homosexual couple came in (D),
        and sought to commission a cake celebrating same-sex marriage (E), Phillips
        refused.

        Prosecutors are claiming that Phillips refused to serve D
        because they were not A; however, this is false, as Phillips offered C to D,
        just as he did for A.

        Rather, the issue is E, which by all accounts Phillips would
        equally be unwilling to create for A *or* D; likewise, there is nothing to
        indicate that Phillips would not create B for either A or D (even if D would
        have no use for it unless commissioning it for a friend).

        The issue, then, is not whether the customers were A or D,
        or Phillips requesting the right to not serve D; no one is supporting that, and
        Phillips doesn’t want that. Heck, he *offered* to serve D, just not in the commission
        they wanted, and was still apparently negotiating with them when they got angry
        and left.

        The issue is whether Phillips should be forced to make E for
        *anyone*, be they homosexual or heterosexual, if he has moral objections to do
        so… the same protection that would be applied to bakers/craftsman of any religion
        or belief system in the case of being asked to create something they find
        morally objectionable or unconscionable.

        The issue is not about the client (D), it’s about the
        product (E); but because D were the ones that came in to ask for E, the issue
        is being badly misconstrued. The fact that Phillips evidenced a complete willingness
        to sell C to D puts lie to the claim that he just doesn’t want to serve D; that’s
        simply untrue. He just doesn’t want to create E, for anyone (neither the D that
        asked for it, nor any A that may come along and ask for it, either)- and I do believe
        that he has that right, just as much as a homosexual baker would if the roles
        were reversed. To force someone to create something they find morally
        objectionable simply because it is requested is, itself, morally objectionable
        in my eyes- and hopefully, in the court’s.

        In addition, “If you sell a product, for the sake of argument custom designed
        wedding cakes you are required by law, in 32 states, to sell that
        product to everyone. The fact you are willing to sell any other product
        but that particular one is of no consequence. The refusal to sell that
        one product to everyone requesting is, is discriminatory and prohibited
        in 32 states. And, quite likely, after the Supreme Court’s ruling, in
        all 50 states.”

        Yes, but the entire point is that a cake celebrating traditional marriage and one celebrating homosexual marriage are two entirely different products. Therefore, he is not refusing to sell one particular product, he is refusing to create a new one.

        • Phoenix1977

          Your attempt to make it easier did not work for me, to be honest, also because it’s already clear. If Jack Phillips is willing to sell a custom designed wedding cake to an opposite-seks couple he is also required by Colorado law to do the same for a same-seks couple. It can’t be easier or clearer than that.

          • Scott

            He isn’t selling a product, that’s the point. He is being asked/commissioned to create an original design. He has the right to dictate the terms of that commission or refuse the request.

          • Phoenix1977

            “He is being asked/commissioned to create an original design.”
            Which is either a product or a service. And according to the law a service is a product.

            “He has the right to dictate the terms of that commission or refuse the request.”
            Not in the state of Colorado.

          • Scott

            Also according to the law the business owner is allowed to dictate the terms of agreement. If there is no agreement, there is no sale… this applies in any state.

          • Phoenix1977

            However, those terms of agreement can never violate the law.

        • FormerLiberalnowConservative

          Great point Zarm. Jack Phillips terms of doing business applied equally to all including homosexuals. He is making the claim that because this couple engages in sodomy they now dictate the terms of doing business. A false claim.

          The Civil Rights Laws dealing with race forbid discrimination based on race. However the blacks had to follow the same equal terms as the whites. Nowhere did that mean that your race now meant that you dictated the terms of business.

          If Jack Phillips was willing to sell custom designed wedding cakes for all opposite sexed couples as his terms of doing business were this applied no matter what your sexuality is. The big lie of the homosexual is that because they are if fact homosexual they may violate the terms and dictate how we do business. He was not required by law and our freedoms to do so to the same sex couple as the same sex couple were not following the terms of doing business.

          Has a black ever been able to tell a white store owner that because he/ she is black they now can change the terms? Can a Jewish person claim discrimination if my food store does not offer Kosher food? Based on his phony logic apparently it is discrimination if the Jewish person wanted to buy Kosher at my store even though it was not offered.

          There is no other group of Americans ever who has had the right to claim that because they do something they now dictate how we do business. The homosexual claims a right that no one else has.

    • FormerLiberalnowConservative

      It also comes down to who sets the terms of doing business and the conditions of the sale, the prospective customer or the shop owner? Based on the flawed logic of the sodomites in the article my store would be guilty of discrimination if we did not take American Express.

      In the USA in the free market it is you the business owner who is supposed to decide which products and services are offered and the terms of doing business. Where in the Constitution is there a right that because you engage in anal sex you now can go into any business and dictate the terms?

  • Janice

    Dear Breakpoint,

    Thank you for sharing this today. I heard it not only once, but twice (unusual for someone who works four jobs and has a business 🙂 ). I heard this after the Lord stirred my heart about staying culturally involved when the Christian beliefs of myself and others have have become confused with philosophies. I want to commit myself publicly with you (and I have with a group of Christian women friends) to stay tuned and be supportive of this critical issue of our times.

    I do believe it is a problem to demand anyone, and considerably close to persecution if not that it is, to deny a God-given belief. Does that mean all Christians should have done the same as Mr. Phillips? That I do not know. However, the question is not about what he did, for that is done and over. What the question or the concern we as Christians must have is that must the Supreme Court again (referring to your point that it is about religious liberty and as important as Roe vs. Wade) decide morality for all human beings?

    God gives the governing authorities for us to pray for: “I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men; For kings, and for all that are in authority; that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and honesty. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Saviour; Who will have all men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth. For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus; Who gave himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time.” (I Timothy 2:1-6)

    “Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God: and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou then not be afraid of the power? do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise of the same: For he is the minister of God to thee for good. But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must needs be subject, not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For for this cause pay ye tribute also: for they are God’s ministers, attending continually upon this very thing. Render therefore to all their dues: tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour. Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.” (Romans 13:1-8)

    Let us as Christians love and stand for what is good. We must call evil evil, and if the rulers are going to call evil what is good, as in Mr. Phillips did what he believed is right and broke no law, then we have to appeal to the rulers to listen to truth that it is not in their authority to rule religious liberty.

    Sincerely,
    Janice

  • Hopeful

    Another planned attack against another Christian and his business.

  • Edward Speegle

    What would the court do if a Christian went into a Muslim Meat Market and asked for a pound of bacon and was refused. Would the Muslim have to go through a government re-education class as Jack Phillips was required to do? The Colorado officials acted as their totalitarian soulmates would. Not only are our religious freedoms under attack, all freedoms are under attack. GOD help the USA.

    • FormerLiberalnowConservative

      So true as there is a classic double standard here. A food or retail store is not considered to be discriminating against Jewish people if it does not offer Kosher food.

    • Phoenix1977

      Again a flawed comparison, because Muslim meat markets don’t sell bacon AT ALL, not just not to Christians.

  • FormerLiberalnowConservative

    The logic of these sodomites and how they twist discrimination is so totally flawed. Consider some other similar examples.

    1. You are a photographer and have a shop that is open for business to the public and therefore subject to public accommodation laws. However your conscience dictates that you do not engage in pornography and therefore chose not to accommodate this. Notice how any photographer has the freedom to decline doing any pornography. It is their civil or Constitutional right and don’t even have to state religious freedom to do so.
    Based on the logic in the article if this baker was wrong and violated public accommodation laws by refusing to offer a service he/ she does not offer then so are the photographers who will not do porn. Typical of the sodomites and liberals. Only they get a special interpretation of public accommodation laws and discrimination that no other American gets.

    2. You own a retail/ food store and by law must accommodate people of different religions. Someone is Jewish and wants to buy Kosher food which you do not offer. Notice how it is not discrimination against Jewish people if your store does not offer Kosher food. Accommodating Jewish people does not mean the Jewish person now dictates the terms of doing business or conditions of the sale. If the service is not offered there is no discrimination.

    3. Do not stores and places of business have dress codes? How can a public store not be in violation of discrimination or public accommodation laws when service is refused to those not adhering to the dress code yet the homosexuals get special treatment no one else gets. Dress codes are part of the terms of doing business just as following the one man and one woman rule are terms of doing business in the bakery.

    Finally not only was his freedom of religion violated but also freedom of speech and expression. Under our freedoms, you do not have to accommodate speech and expression that you do not support and oppose. This is why the T shirts printers in KY were allowed to decline the homosexual business. If you disagree with the message on the cake then it is a violation of your freedom of speech to be forced to bake and print speech and expression you disagree with.

    • Gina Dalfonzo

      I’d appreciate it if you didn’t fling around terms like “sodomite” and “homo.” Please read our comment policy above and try to moderate your tone. Thanks.

      • FormerLiberalnowConservative

        I changed the homo to homosexuals in the edits but the real term of sodomites is quite correct and you are adhering to the lies of the homosexuals. It is what they do. They engage in sodomy and anal sex so the term sodomite is quite correct. The biggest reason why they have been so successful is their ability to disguise and deceive.
        They stole the word gay and redefined it for their own purpose. Gay was supposed to mean a condition of being happy and had nothing to do with sexual activity. Notice they do everything in their power to avoid and tell the truth of what they actually do. They do engage in a gross, unhealthy, perverted sexual act that our God finds an abomination. Sticking your reproductive parts into the anus of another person is unnatural, unhealthy and is fact anal sex or sodomy.

        I read you comment policy and did follow it. I simply chose not to lie and be taken in by deceit. Satan lies and uses deceit. However since I want this comment printed I will change sodomite to homosexual.

        • Gina Dalfonzo

          Be that as it may, I’ve told you to stop using the word here. Also the term “loony liberal,” which showed up in comments that I deleted. If you want to post here, you need to follow the rules. If you keep defying them, you’ll be banned. It’s up to you.

    • Phoenix1977

      Your examples are all flawed in a very simple way. Let me address all of them, please.

      1. Yes, a photographer has the right to refuse to do pornography as long as he/she refuses to do ALL KINDS OF (legally allowed) pornography. Should, however, the photographer agree to work in heterosexual pornography and refuse gay pornography (or vice versa) it would be discrimination again.

      2. And you would be right if you would sell kosher food to everyone but the Jewish. However, if you don’t sell kosher food at all you’re not discriminating against anyone.

      3. And as long as you require EVERYONE to uphold the dress code there is no problem. However, if you allow some people (let’s say: straight couples) in your establishment who violate the dress code while refusing service to other people (for example, gay couples) who are not up to code, what do you think that would be? Indeed, DISCRIMINATION!!!

      And finally, Kentucky is one of the 18 states without anti-discrimination laws, which is why t-shirt printers there were indeed allowed to refuse to print the requested t-shirts. However, Colorado does have anti-discrimination laws which include gender identity and sexual orientation as protected classes. And since the message of the cake is of no consequence (after all, Jack Phillips sells custom designed wedding cakes and that was what the gay couple requested) most likely Kentucky will have an anti-discrimination law after the Supreme Court ruled on the matter, just like all other states in the Union.

      • FormerLiberalnowConservative

        No they are not flawed but the truth spoken here shows your logic and arguments are all wrong.

        1. Nothing was said about what kind of pornography as porn is porn. If one refuses to not do porn then that is how it works. It has nothing to do with doing this porn but not doing a different one. The photographer has made it clear in his/ her terms of doing business. If you want my business it has to be non pornographic.
        The same scenario applies to doing weddings. The terms of doing business and getting service clearly states we do only man/ woman marriages only regardless of your sexual preference. If a homosexual male wants to marry a female counterpart then they will get the same service as a heterosexual. All wedding ceremonies are man/ woman only to get the service. Their is no civil or Constitutional right that because you engage in anal sex, you now get to tell the photographer what the terms of doing business is.

        2. The analogy used in reference to the Jewish person applies to the homosexual. as well. Just like the store is not guilty of discrimination if Kosher food is not offered, the same applies to the baker. Same sex ceremonies are not offered at all. Only opposite sex ceremonies are offered. It is only discrimination if a homosexual followed the same terms of doing business as everyone else and was denied. Your decision to engage in sodomy did not create some magical civil right of being the only Americans who get to go into any business and willfully violate the terms of doing business.

        3. If one is homosexual he/ she cannot violate the dress code because they engage in anal sex. The same scenario applies here to the baker. Just like no shirts, no shoes, no service also means everyone must abide by the opposite sex rules to get the service. For a homosexual to scream discrimination would be no different than the person not following the dress code screaming discrimination.

        No they were allowed to not print the T shirts in KY because the speech requested violated the free speech rights of the T shirt seller. If I support President Trump and I sell printed T shirts I may turn down and shirt requests that say vote for the Democrats. The same applies to Colorado as the Constitution applies there. I am opposed to the vile practice of homosexuality and the perverted practice of sodomy and get to exercise my free speech rights in participating in speech and expression that one opposes. Anti discrimination did not create some magical formula whereby because you engage in anal sex my Constitutional rights no longer are honored.
        Of course sexual orientation is a lie since all humans are oriented towards the opposite sex as evidenced by biology. Homosexuality is a choice and therefore a preference and is not innate. Gender identity is another hoax and lie as one is born male or female and you cannot change that.
        You outright lie making the claim the message on the cake is of no consequence when in fact it is. It is a message that one opposes. Jack Phillips sells custom designed wedding cakes and as the business owner has the Constitutional right to turn down any message that he is opposed to. Nowhere in our Constitution does it say that your free speech rights are hereby cancelled because a homosexual demands it.

  • Scott

    Art is something I know a little bit about. : – ) There is no rule that states art has to last a certain period of time to be considered a piece of art. Ask any musician or performance artist. Ice sculptures/sand sculptures are a good example of art with a shelf life. : – )

    • Phoenix1977

      Music is considered art because the sheet music makes it lasting. Ice and sand sculptures are not considered art because it’s not lasting. It’s not that difficult. Everything that can last, can be considered art. Everything that can’t last is not.

  • Gina Dalfonzo

    FormerLiberalnowConservative, I am going to tell you one more time to moderate your tone. (“Leftists think like Communists” is generalizing about and bashing an entire group instead of making constructive criticisms.) If you can’t do it, you’re going to be banned. Again, it’s up to you.

  • FormerLiberalnowConservative

    Again not flawed. The law we are talking about here is not what the state recognition of marriage is but the rights of an individual who owns private property and the rights of a business owner setting the terms of doing business and the conditions of the sale. The law makes no difference on what is a proper dress code, that is left to the property owner on rules of being in his/ her establishment.
    The big lie you propose is because if a state recognizes false/ counterfeit marriage a private business owner must do so in their business open to the public. Simply not true. The American Express Card is valid in all fifty states yet a business owner is free not to accept the card. This is known as the terms of doing business and getting the service. Happy Hank’s and smiling Sam’s decision to openly sodomize each other did not create some false civil right of now as a same sex couple they now walk into any business and now dictate the terms of service and doing business.
    Resorts are a great example of this. Many resorts desire a balance of the sexes so to get admitted as a couple, it has to be one man and one woman. It has nothing to do with sexuality as a brother/ sister are admitted. Same sex couples are not admitted as there is an in balance of sexes. A homosexual is admitted if he/ she comes with an opposite sexed counterpart. So therefore it does not matter if it discriminates against same sex couples as they are not meeting the terms of doing business. This is no different than calling a dress code policy discriminatory.
    Jack Phillips has set the terms of doing business as one man and one woman ceremonies only. This applies equally to all no matter what your sexual preference is. If a homosexual male brings in an opposite sexed counterpart then service is still provided. So he did not discriminate because they are homosexual but because they did not meet the terms of doing business.

    Again your decision to engage is anal sex did not create some magical phony right of you may violate the terms of service and doing business. The Civil Rights Laws that addressed race never meant that because you are black you did not have to follow the same rules as the whites. The same rules applies to all races.

    Homosexuality is a choice and no one was born homosexual. It is not innate and biological science has proven this to be so. The lying homosexuals make this false claim. In science the burden of proof is on the one making the claim, so the burden of proof is on the homosexuals themselves. No sound scientific, DNA, or biological proof is offered and in fact it is biologically impossible to be born a homosexual.

    If the Supreme Court follows the Constitution it will rule in favor of Jack Phillips since it is his Constitutional rights that are being violated here. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech. Nowhere in that document that was written by the Founding Fathers does it say the homosexual agenda now overrules our Constitutional freedoms and liberties. Then again the liberal members that now sit of courts have made it quite clear that the Constitution as set down is no longer valid and they follow the one made up in their minds. Liberal judges use the court to engage in judicial activism and thumb their nose at the Constitution.

    • Phoenix1977

      “Resorts are a great example of this. Many resorts desire a balance of the sexes so to get admitted as a couple, it has to be one man and one woman. It has nothing to do with sexuality as a brother/ sister are admitted. Same sex couples are not admitted as there is an in balance of sexes. A homosexual is admitted if he/ she comes with an opposite sexed counterpart. So therefore it does not matter if it discriminates against same sex couples as they are not meeting the terms of doing business.”
      Interesting. Especially since I recently went to a resort for 10 days with my boyfriend and we were not even not refused but neither were male or female couples of friends or singles. So I could tell you when I think you are trying to sell me but Gina would not like me doing that.

      “Homosexuality is a choice and no one was born homosexual. It is not innate and biological science has proven this to be so. ”
      The American Medical Association (AMA), the American Psychiatric / Psychological Association (APA), the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the American Academy on Pediatrics (AAP) don’t agree with you. They all state homosexuality is an innate, inborn trait which is a variant to the norm and perfectly normal and healthy. Somehow their opinion matters more to me than yours does.

      “If the Supreme Court follows the Constitution it will rule in favor of Jack Phillips since it is his Constitutional rights that are being violated here. Freedom of religion and freedom of speech”
      And yet the Supreme Court has upheld all anti-discrimination laws since the 1960s, even when religion was used as defense.

  • Janice

    Interesting enough, but not by accident have I read the verses concerning government lately. One is in I Peter 2:14…”For the punishment of evildoers and for the praise of those who do good.” Mr. Phillips will be on trial for either breaking the law or not…that is the only source of conviction. Government and it’s facilitators are to restrain evil and promote stable peace. Something that may be considered here is that stable peace may have already been compromised when same sex marriage was permitted lawfully.

  • HisChildren

    This is for real, folks! We did NOT have our day in court and our 13-year-old dream came to an end.

    http://www.becketlaw.org/case/odgaard-v-iowa/

  • Gina Dalfonzo

    I’m doing it because moderating these comments is part of my job, and as moderator I insist on a civil tone.