BreakPoint: Get the Facts about Jack (Phillips, that Is)

The Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop

There are too many myths being propagated about the Supreme Court case involving Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. It’s time to set the record straight. Stay tuned to BreakPoint.

On December 5, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—which could be one of the most significant cases in our nation’s history involving freedom of speech and freedom of religion.

If your only source of information were mainstream media outlets, you’ve probably heard the case described along these lines: hiding behind a specious claim to religious freedom, anti-gay baker Jack Phillips refused to serve a same-sex couple in his store. The couple reported this hateful discrimination to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which rightly fined Phillips.

There’s only one problem with this description of what happened. It’s hogwash.

Here’s what you need to know about Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop—what you need to know and tell your friends, family, and co-workers when the topic comes up.

First, Jack is a cake artist, something that’s become more famous since reality television shows like “Cake Wars.” He doesn’t just bake cakes; he custom designs master cakes. However, from the beginning Jack has seen his business as an expression of his faith (hence the name), and that has led him to reject business throughout his career. For example, he’s refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties.

Back in 2012, two men asked Jack to design a cake for their same-sex wedding. Now mind you, back in 2012, the state of Colorado didn’t even recognize same-sex weddings. Jack told them that he would gladly sell them any item in the store—including cakes—but that he could not, due to his religious convictions, use his cake-design talents to participate in the celebration of their ceremony.

The couple left fuming. Vile phone calls started pouring in—even death threats. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission not only fined Jack, but ordered that if he made custom wedding cakes for heterosexual couples, he also had to do it for same-sex couples. Then the Commission—behaving like some communist dictatorship might—ordered Jack and his employees to go through a “re-education” program and provide quarterly compliance reports.

Obviously Jack appealed, and his case has made it to the Supreme Court. Jack has stopped selling wedding cakes, and has lost 40 percent of his business, and has had to lay off employees.

Now those are the facts. You can find them at ADFLegal.org—the website of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Jack.

Nonetheless, the media, the LGBTQ lobby, the ACLU, and even members of Congress continue to misrepresent the case and smear Jack Phillips.

At a recent press briefing, Maryland Congressman Stenny Hoyer told the cameras, “We’re better than exclusion, we’re better than hate, we’re better than prejudice. We respect each and every one of our fellow citizens.”

Well, each and every citizen except, I suppose, Jack Phillips.

The liberal website ThinkProgress (which by the way calls the Alliance Defending Freedom an “anti-LGBTQ hate group”) wrote that Phillips refused to sell the gay couple “any product.”

That’s simply not true. He offered them anything in the shop that was already made.

I could go on and on with the misrepresentations—and the omissions. But the facts are Jack was not singling out gay customers. He simply refuses to use his artistic talent in a way that would violate his core convictions.

Today on the BreakPoint podcast, you can hear Jack’s attorney Kristen Waggoner and the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson describe the details and significance of this case, and how you can support Jack Phillips. Come to BreakPoint.org to find it.

 

Get the Facts about Jack (Phillips, that Is): The Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop

Click here to listen to today’s podcast to understand the facts, and the implications, of Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Jack Phillips’ case that will be heard by the Supreme Court next month.

 

Resources

The freedom to make decisions based upon our faith is being challenged
  • Alliance Defending Freedom | Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

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

    “First, Jack is a cake artist, something that’s become more famous since reality television shows like “Cake Wars.” He doesn’t just bake cakes; he custom designs master cakes.”
    Jack Phillips may think himself an artist but cake designing and decorating, no matter how beautiful, has never been recognized as an art form.

    “For example, he’s refused to make custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s turned down requests for lewd cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties.”
    Not the same. Jack Phillips refused to make Halloween cakes and divorce cakes for everyone. But custom designed wedding cakes h only refused to same-sex couples.

    “Back in 2012, two men asked Jack to design a cake for their same-sex wedding. Now mind you, back in 2012, the state of Colorado didn’t even recognize same-sex weddings.”
    The entire case started after the Supreme Court ruled DOMA to be unconstitutional. So Colorado was forced to recognize marriages from out of state, including same-sex marriages. The gay couple was planning on getting married in Massachusetts, a state where same-sex marriage was already legal so, without DOMA, Colorado had to recognize their marriage as well.

    “The Colorado Civil Rights Commission not only fined Jack, but ordered that if he made custom wedding cakes for heterosexual couples, he also had to do it for same-sex couples.”
    Like I said, custom designed cakes are a product, a service. And if you offer that to one you are required t offer it to all. At least in Colorado and 31 other states in the Union.

    “Jack has stopped selling wedding cakes, and has lost 40 percent of his business, and has had to lay off employees.”
    This is the only part of the case I can respect Jack Phillips for. He accepted the consequences of his choice to follow his faith.

    “He offered them anything in the shop that was already made. (…) But the facts are Jack was not singling out gay customers.”
    Which is still discriminatory because he would have created a cake for a straight couple. So he was singling out gay customers.

    • Lynwood Johnson

      Phoenix1977, it would be interesting to learn what other life you lead, besides trolling BreakPoint.

      A couple of other interesting facts not mentioned, either in this article or ‘Phoenix’s’ attempt at rebuttal …

      Hugh Hewitt had on his radio program within the last 10 days, the CEO of Alliance Defending Freedom. In that interview we learned that the gay individuals who eventually launched the suit were not unknown to Jack Phillips; indeed, they had been customers of Phillips and his shop on numerous prior occasions. The fact they were repeat customers suggests they appreciated the quality of his work.

      We also learned the the US Solicitor General will also be speaking at the oral presentation in 3 wks, as a friend of the Court and in defense of Alliance Defending Freedom’s client, Jack Phillips.

      Hugh Hewitt calls this case “the most important ‘Free Exercise’ case in my life time.” Many of us agree, and will be watching the proceedings closely.

      • Phoenix1977

        “Phoenix1977, it would be interesting to learn what other life you lead, besides trolling BreakPoint.”
        I’d suggest you read some of my other posts than. I don’t really feel like repeating myself time and again.

        “The fact they were repeat customers suggests they appreciated the quality of his work.”
        Of course they appreciated his work. Why would they ask him to design their wedding cake if they didn’t? And for the case it makes no difference. Jack Phillips refused to sell them a product he does offer to others because they are a same-sex couple, which, in Colorado, is unlawful discrimination.

        “We also learned the the US Solicitor General will also be speaking at the oral presentation in 3 wks”
        Yes, the LGBT community is quite upset the Trump administration is attempting to interfere in this case. So much for the separation of powers.

        “Hugh Hewitt calls this case “the most important ‘Free Exercise’ case in my life time.” Many of us agree, and will be watching the proceedings closely.”
        I completely agree. This case will decide whether or not a superstition will grant you immunity from criminal prosecution if you discriminate against people. However, since religious freedom was never accepted in attempts to uphold racial segregation I doubt it will be accepted as an excuse for discrimination against same-sex couples.

        • Scott

          “And for the case it makes no difference. Jack Phillips refused to sell them a product he does offer to others because they are a same-sex couple, which, in Colorado, is unlawful discrimination.”

          A product has to exist to be a product. A painting is only a painting after it has been painted. Jack was willing to sell any of his pre-existing products to the couple. He was not willing to use his artistic talent to created a specially designed cake with a message that ran contrary to his beliefs/conscience. An artist/designer has the right to freedom of conscience and cannot be forced to create something that violates their conscience.

          • Phoenix1977

            Like I already said, for the law there is no difference. A service is a product and therefor the same rules apply.

          • Scott

            “A service is a product and therefor the same rules apply.”

            Not if you are requesting the services of an artist.

          • Phoenix1977

            “Not if you are requesting the services of an artist.”

            And with that comment we went full circle, because cake decorating has never been recognized as an art form.

          • Scott

            And yet people (like the same sex couple involved in this case) seek Jack Phillips specifically for his artistic talent?

            That is why Jack offered to sell them a cake already made. They had the right to refuse to purchase his cake. Just like he has the right to withhold his artistic talents. Artistic talent is not bound by specific media, an artist is an artist whether they are working in wood, clay, glass, paints, graphite, metal, or pipe cleaners. Jack just happens to work in a media that is edible.

          • Phoenix1977

            “And yet people (like the same sex couple involved in this case) seek Jack Phillips specifically for his artistic talent?”
            No, they seek him because he makes a good product.

            We can debate this till we’re blue in the face. Cake decorating has never been recognized as an art form, therefor Jack Phillips is not an artist but a business man. So he doesn’t sell pieces of art but a service, which is legally the same thing as a product, which he is obligated, by law, to sell to everyone equally if he offers it to anyone. Meaning he has two ways out: 1. do his job and make custom designed wedding cakes for all couples who request them, or; 2. stop making custom designed wedding cakes completely. There is no compromise possible here.

          • Scott

            “No, they seek him because he makes a good product.”

            

Then why didn’t they accept the “good product” Jack offered them? Instead they tried to force Jack to use his artistic talent to create a special design with a message that ran contrary to Jack’s conscience. Without Jack’s artistic talent, likely he would not be the cake business to begin with. His artistry/artistic talent is what makes his business successful.



            “We can debate this till we’re blue in the face.”

            

Or we can agree to disagree. : – )



            “Cake decorating has never been recognized as an art form, therefor Jack Phillips is not an artist but a business man. So he doesn’t sell pieces of art but a service, which is legally the same thing as a product, which he is obligated, by law, to sell to everyone equally if he offers it to anyone.”

            

You may not consider cake decorating an art form, but others would and the law doesn’t restrict an artist’s media. Artists are business men and women as well and in America every artist has the right of conscience, to choose their terms of business when it comes to commissioning their talents. The two parties can agree to the terms or not but one can’t sue the artist because they don’t like their terms. One can simply disagree and walk away. Jack uses artistry when creating custom wedding cakes and people employ him specifically for his artistic talent. He sells his products to everyone equally, he reserves his artistic talent as his conscience guides him. And the law in America, at least currently, upholds right of conscience to all self employed artists.

          • Phoenix1977

            “Then why didn’t they accept the “good product” Jack offered them?”
            Because that was not the product they wanted.

            “

Or we can agree to disagree. : – )

”
            Same difference.

            “Artists are business men and women as well and in America every artist has the right of conscience, to choose their terms of business when it comes to commissioning their talents.”
            So far the courts do not agree with you. And I doubt the Supreme Court will rule any more positive for Jack Phillips than the previous courts have.

          • Scott

            “Because that was not the product they wanted.”

            Right!.. They wanted his artistic talent. : – )

            “So far the courts do not agree with you. And I doubt the Supreme Court will rule any more positive for Jack Phillips than the previous courts have.”

            In Colorado at any rate. We will see how the Supreme Court rules… Alas, I do not know for sure.

          • Phoenix1977

            “Right!.. They wanted his artistic talent. : – )”
            No, they wanted the same product he offered to other couples getting married: a custom designed wedding cake.

            “We will see how the Supreme Court rules… Alas, I do not know for sure.”
            Take this into account. Since the Civil Rights Act in the 1960s the Supreme Court has never ruled against anti-discrimination laws, not even when religious liberty was used as an argument against anti-discrimination laws. Also, the Supreme Court has NEVER ruled against LGBT rights since homosexuality was removed from the DSM classification system. Not a single case in front of the Supreme Court involving LGBTs has gone wrong for LGBTs since 1977.
            Combine these two facts and do the math.

          • Scott

            “No, they wanted the same product he offered to other couples getting married: a custom designed wedding cake.”

            … and the only reason they wanted Jack to design their custom cake is because of his artistic talent. It is no different than requesting an artist to create custom painting for your living room. A custom painting is a product that requires an artist… just like any custom designed, decorative piece. : – )

            Okay… I think my face is blue now. You will not recognize Jack’s commissioned custom work as art and I will not recognize it as otherwise. So we stand at an impasse. : – )

          • Phoenix1977

            “So we stand at an impasse. : – )”
            Most definitely.

    • Steve

      He would also refuse three people or more getting married, a person marrying an an an animal or inanimate object, etc.
      It just happens to be that the gay couple has been the first ones to test this.

      • Phoenix1977

        We’ll never know for sure, will we? And besides, once again a comparison that makes no sense whatsoever. Because same-sex marriages are the law of the land while all your other examples are not.

    • The H

      A few other thoughts: I want to suggest that even if a heterosexual person ask jack to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding (for his friend for example), Jack would definitely turn it down too. It’s not the person he rejects, but the message.

      I think one of the reason that people keep talking over each other’s heads is the issue of identity. The homosexual couple sees a denial of baking a cake for them as a denial of their identity. They see it as a fundamental rejection of who they are. Whereas the christian, (and I’m projecting my ideas onto jack here) sees those two things separate. He distinguishes between the homosexual wedding and their beings. He would serve their being by any other cake and or anything else, as is his godly duty to serve other’s, but not the wedding cake because he does not consider that a fundamental part of their being. The Bible teaches that the sexual orientation is not the fundamental identity for a person, but rather the fact that they are made in God’s image. On the other hand, the other side does the same thing to jack. They consider that he could separate his beliefs from his identity (being) therefore to ask him to capitulate isn’t asking too much. But to the Christian, our conscious is integral to our identity. The Colorado laws as interpreted by the civil rights commission agrees with the former. We will see what the supreme court says. But I think it’s good to understand that it will be hard or impossible to change anyone’s opinion on this because it ties into one’s identity. I honestly don’t believe jack means to reject any ones identity. As a Christian, I certainly do not. I just think we have different definition of what that means. And if you profess that our basis for identity is based on superstition (i.e. the Bible) then we may be at an impasse for a true civil discourse.

      • Phoenix1977

        “I want to suggest that even if a heterosexual person ask jack to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding (for his friend for example), Jack would definitely turn it down too. It’s not the person he rejects, but the message.”
        Which would still be denying the same product to people based on their sexual orientation.

        “Whereas the christian, (and I’m projecting my ideas onto jack here) sees those two things separate.”
        And somehow Christians feel because of their views and believes the world needs to adapt to their wishes and they should be exempt from the law. But they are not. Even the late Antonin Scalia recognized the fact people are bound to the law of the land first and all other things later because a country would be unable to be governed otherwise.

        “But I think it’s good to understand that it will be hard or impossible to change anyone’s opinion on this because it ties into one’s identity.”
        I’m afraid you are missing the point. We no longer need to change people’s opinion on the matter. That ship has sailed. Same-sex marriage is the law of the land and is already supported by the majority of the American people, just as the Gallup poll from May this year showed the majority of the American people agrees religious liberty should take a back seat in this matter. Now there are a small number of people still clinging to the way things were and that number is growing smaller by the day. We don’t need them to change their opinion. We simply need to make it clear to them they are required to obey the law.

        “And if you profess that our basis for identity is based on superstition (i.e. the Bible) then we may be at an impasse for a true civil discourse.”
        To me, your bible is one big work of fiction with no truths, no life lessons or anything else of value to me or to society. I don’t remember who said it or the exact words (it might have been Mark Twain) but he said the bible is nothing but a work of fiction that became a bestseller due to the massive PR agency behind it. I agree on that.
        So if your view of the world is based solely on the bible we will never ever agree on anything, because everything you hold true I reject and vice versa. And that, indeed, is an impasse not only you and me are in but the entire society.

  • B. Nathaniel Sullivan

    John Stonestreet is correct. The mainstream media are indeed misleading the public about the details of Jack Phillips’s case. News stories, and especially headlines, leave the impression that Jack refused to serve the same-sex couple anything, when that simply is not the case.

    Jack isn’t the only creative professional who considers his work as artistic expression. An amicus brief filled on behalf of cake artists carries dozens of photos demonstrating that bakers and cake decorators use their talents creatively and artistically. Their work is expression—effort and energy expended producing statements that convey ideas. Accordingly, this is a First Amendment issue, and 34 legal scholars contend this very thing in an amicus brief they filed before the Supreme Court.

    Most people do not know that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has been inconsistent in its rulings regarding the Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. in 2015 it reviewed cases for three other bakers who declined to make cakes that expressed opposition to same-sex marriage. The commission found that all three had a right to act according to the dictates of their consciences. If they have that right, why doesn’t Jack Phillips? Alliance Defending Freedom is spot on when it says, “The commission’s inconsistent rulings mean that the owners of these three cake shops may run them according to their beliefs, while Jack cannot. He risks losing his life-long business altogether if he continues to run it consistent with his faith. Such blatant religious discrimination has no place in our society.”

    The argument progressives frequently use that homosexuality is like race and gender is problematic, and not just because progressives have weakened this argument themselves by contending gender is fluid and changeable. Here’s the difference. Homosexuality is inseparably linked to behavior. One’s race and sex are innate and clearly physiological. We make this point because it is relevant to the case—even though Jack Phillips did not and does not refuse to serve homosexuals. He simply declines to participate in an event he does not believe to be valid or legitimate. This gives rise to a significant question: Other than to force people like Jack to celebrate an event against their wills, why would a same-sex couple want someone to create a cake for their event when the creative professional does not believe in the event itself?

    To the founders of our country, conscience rights were sacred. Founding Father James Madison is known as the Father of the Constitution. He declared, “Government is instituted to protect property of every sort…. This being the end of government, that alone is a just government which impartially secures to every man whatever is his own.” In the same document, Madison added, “Conscience is the most sacred of all property; other property depending in part on positive law, the exercise of that, being a natural and unalienable right. To guard a man’s house as his castle, to pay public and enforce private debts with the most exact faith, can give no title to invade a man’s conscience which is more sacred than his castle, or to withhold from it that debt of protection, for which the public faith is pledged, by the very nature and original conditions of the social pact.”

    Madison essentially said, “Woe to any government that would protect the right of an individual to own a home and other tangible items, yet not protect his right to live his life according to his own conscience, his most important and sacred possession.”

    Liberty should be a two-way street.

    For years and years, progressives asked, “How will a same-sex couple’s marriage affect you?” They were contending it would not and it could not, because it was the couple’s own private business. Well, progressives now have what they long sought—government recognition of a same-sex union as a marriage, and now they are insisting that to stay in business, Jack Phillips and other creative professionals must—they should be required to—violate his own consciences.

    This is not the American way.

    B. Nathaniel Sullivan

    http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/dozens_of_amicus_brief_support_christian_bakery_owner_who_refused_wedding_c

    http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9588

    http://www.wordfoundations.com/bsp-an-excerpt-from-behold-the-irony-part-3/

    http://www.wordfoundations.com/the-truth-about-jack-phillips-and-his-convictions/

    • vreed lak72

      An amicus brief filed by 222 chefs and bakers was filed on behalf of the Colorado and the 2 gay men. They don’t believe that they have the right to discriminate against customers in violation of the law – despite considering what they do for a living to be very artistic.

      Re: the 3 other Colorado bakeries. It is a question of fact for the decider of fact to determine what the motivation behind the refusal of service is. So the question on those cases was “Did the bakeries discriminate against the customer because he was a Christian – or because they refused to write the words ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin’ on the cake as requested by the customer?” Given that the bakeries all gladly served Christians before and there was no evidence presented that they would ever write such a message on a cake for a non-Christian customer, Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission determined that the motivation behind the refusal of service was a design disagreement.

      Whereas, Jack Phillips did not give the customers a chance to describe what they wanted. There was no design disagreement. He said he wouldn’t make the ANY wedding cake. So, it was determined that the reason for refusal of service was the customers’ sexual orientation, which is illegal.

  • Phoenix1977

    And the LGBT community is hoping he will lose. Not only because it will affirm Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws but it will also impose the same laws on the 18 states in the Union that do not protect LGBTs right now.
    And we have no intention of being tolerant towards the intolerant. We have tried that so many times in the past only to be harassed even more. So now we are fighting fire with fire. We didn’t start these fights but we have every intention to end them.

    • The H

      “We have no intention of being tolerant toward the intolerant.” So it’s not a myth that the crowd that cries tolerance and acceptance is intolerant. The truth is that both sides have measures to which the won’t budge on. Both sides discriminate and is intolerant, which is logically sound. No one in the world can live with out discriminating between what one sees as good vs. bad. I am just glad that you admit this instead of throwing out meaningless words like inclusion and tolerance (like many others)when they are not being accepting of the opposite perspective.

      • Phoenix1977

        We are simply repaying you people for all the intolerance we had to endure since the birth of Christianity. Want to blame people for that? Blame your ancestors. They could have simply left us alone and let us live our lives. Instead they hunted us down, harassed us, violated us and even killed us. And there are still Christian camps where they “treat” LGBTs with dangerous therapies (according to the American Psychiatric / Psychological Association) in order to make them straight. And violence as well as electroshocks are acceptable methods on those “therapies”.
        So don’t go blaming us for the hatred and distrust you people caused. Simply own up to the mistakes made by you and your ancestors and perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of coexistence will be possible. But certainly not now because we simply don’t trust you.

        • Scott

          “Blame your ancestors. They could have simply left us alone and let us live our lives. Instead they hunted us down, harassed us, violated us and even killed us.”

          You do not know who my ancestors are, how is it you can blame them for all of this? Your anger is causing you to make blind accusations against people you don’t know? There is no justice in what you are saying.

          “We are simply repaying you people… …So don’t go blaming us for the hatred and distrust you people caused. Simply own up to the mistakes made by you and your ancestors and perhaps, in a few generations, some kind of coexistence will be possible. But certainly not now because we simply don’t trust you.”

          So how is this rhetoric helpful?.. Your talk of revenge and war does not help you, the LGBT community or any person who would seek progress towards reconciliation. You leave no way forward when people like myself would seek it.

          “And there are still Christian camps where they “treat” LGBTs with dangerous therapies (according to the American Psychiatric / Psychological Association) in order to make them straight. And violence as well as electroshocks are acceptable methods on those “therapies”.”

          Please give a legitimate example of where this is happening?

          • Phoenix1977

            “You do not know who my ancestors are, how is it you can blame them for all of this?”
            I was talking about previous generations of Christians.

            “Your talk of revenge and war does not help you, the LGBT community or any person who would seek progress towards reconciliation.”
            That would imply the LGBT community seeks reconciliation. The majority of us does not.

            “Please give a legitimate example of where this is happening?”
            No problem:
            http://www.towleroad.com/2017/03/conversion-therapy/
            http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/video/undercover-called-gay-conversion-camp-46038064
            http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/michele-bachmann-silent-allegations-clinic-offers-gay-conversion/story?id=14057215
            Is that enough or do I need to google another 5 minutes for more examples?

          • Scott

            “I was talking about previous generations of Christians.”

            

Perhaps, but you instead implicated “the H’s” ancestors without knowing who they were? By making over generalized assumptions, you do more damage than good. You can’t blame an innocent Christian for the deeds of past (guilty) Christians just like I can’t blame you for the deeds of other atheists.



            “That would imply the LGBT community seeks reconciliation. The majority of us does not.”



            This is sad and perhaps symptomatic of a deeper problem. Your rhetoric states you seek revenge/oppression/war… and we don’t need a history lesson to tell us the problems inherent with that approach.

”Is that enough or do I need to google another 5 minutes for more examples?”

            

Thank you, one would have been fine. : – )

            Most Christians do not think “violence and electroshock” are acceptable methods of therapy for anyone and all the Christians I know would agree. These practices should be condemned and spoken out against until they no longer happen.

          • Phoenix1977

            “You can’t blame an innocent Christian for the deeds of past (guilty) Christians just like I can’t blame you for the deeds of other atheists”
            Define an innocent Christian. From my perspective there are Christians who actively hurt LGBTs (and others) by their actions and those who hurt them passively by their inactions. To quote Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. And both in the past and present a lot of Christians did absolutely nothing when they should have protected others from harm.

            “Your rhetoric states you seek revenge/oppression/war”
            Ever heard the cliche: “The best defense is a good offense”? The LGBT community has 2 options: stand down and trust Christians will treat us better now than they did in the past or make sure Christians will never again be in a position where they can harm us again. History taught us the first option will bring us nothing but pain and misery. We have no idea what option 2 will bring but, from our point of view, it can’t be worse than we have already endured in the (recent) past.

            “Most Christians do not think “violence and electroshock” are acceptable methods of therapy for anyone and all the Christians I know would agree.”
            And yet, if you have watched the clips you can see several of the men responsible for these “treatments” wearing signs of the clergy while their “facilities” refer directly to Christianity and the bible.

            “These practices should be condemned and spoken out against until they no longer happen.”
            These practices are condemned. By both the American Psychological / Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization and several LGBT rights groups. They are outlawed in 9 states in the US and every time another state decides to join these 9 states there is an outcry, mostly by conservative religious organisations, people are taken away the chance to be cured of their homosexuality. But what governments and medical associations are doing is protecting people, especially minors, from unproven, dangerous practices that have zero basis in science when asking whether the therapies work and tons of scientific evidence about the dangers and the negative effects.

            There are a lot of things you and me agree on. However, you maintain the view Christianity is a good, benevolent religion, determined to do good to people and bring peace to the world. And you are probably right, IF you are a Christian. If you are not things don’t look so well for you with Christians in control.
            You, as well as several others here, counter most of my arguments with the reasoning not all Christians are like that. But let me tell you 2 reasons why that argument doesn’t fly:
            1. If you look hard enough you will probably find a few LGBTs that don’t hold a grudge against Christianity. That doesn’t mean the majority of us doesn’t;
            2. You are the first, last and only Christian I have met so far who is not immediately hostile when dealing with LGBTs. 1 exception on hundreds of thousands of Christians who are hostile towards us is no reason for the LGBT community to feel safe. It’s reason to be even more vigilant than we already are.

            P.S.
            This quote, by Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney, I just found on lifesitenews.com:
            “The archbishop called for the freedom to disagree to be respected in law. “It is time now to come together as a nation, renew our friendships with those who think differently to us, and ensure that respect for different beliefs is clearly enshrined in our laws and customs.””
            The article is about Australia voting overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage. I wonder if Anthony Fisher would have called for respect and renewal of friendship if the “No” side would have won, just as we see and hear religious conservatives demand respect for opposite views since their views are not leading anymore. Personally, I doubt it.
            The entire article can be read on lifesitenews.com: https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/australians-vote-for-gay-marriagesydney-archbishop-deeply-disappointed

          • Scott

            Thank you for this reply! It is perhaps the most thorough you’ve given, nice!

            “Define an innocent Christian. From my perspective there are Christians who actively hurt LGBTs (and others) by their actions and those who hurt them passively by their inactions. To quote Edmund Burke: “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing”. And both in the past and present a lot of Christians did absolutely nothing when they should have protected others from harm.”

            I think the phrase “from your perspective” is key to your statement here. I love your use of Edmund Burke’s quote. As I am sure you know, my interpretation of it is vastly different than yours though. Christians receive their definition of evil from God. As an atheist, your disbelief in God requires every individuals to define evil for themselves. Since no two people will ever agree on all things, evil becomes a moving target. If there is no God than it is one big game of he said she said.

            Also your assumption that “Christians did absolutely nothing” is based on your biased view of Christians. You only look for Christians doing bad because you want us to be bad. Perhaps it is because you experience Christians doing bad/evil to you and you seek to punish every Christian for their acts. In that case you should read Corrie ten Boom’s story and how she was able to forgive her atheist assailants. When I cite all the wonderful contributions Christians have made to the world, you discount them by saying the good doesn’t make up for the bad. You are unwilling to see good in a person just because they are Christian. I on the other hand, am willing (as a Christian mind you) to accept you as equal. You are a person made in the image of God and therefore I recognize your value to God as equal to my own. My Christian beliefs require me to look outside of my own personal feelings when regarding others. This keeps me from hatred because no matter how much I disagree with you, I am forced to recognize God’s love for you. I am also able to recognize when an atheist contributes something good in spite of all the horrific atrocities caused by past atheists.

            Conversely as an Atheist, you recognize no moral authority and thus invent your own set of morals. You are right when you say “Christians did absolutely nothing when they should have protected others from harm,” but you left out the word “some,” it should have preceded the first work of that sentence. You speak only of the Christians you choose to see. There are literally millions of Christians that are doing good.

            “Ever heard the cliche: “The best defense is a good offense”? The LGBT community has 2 options: stand down and trust Christians will treat us better now than they did in the past or make sure Christians will never again be in a position where they can harm us again. History taught us the first option will bring us nothing but pain and misery. We have no idea what option 2 will bring but, from our point of view, it can’t be worse than we have already endured in the (recent) past.”

            You missed option 3. Work with Christians (like myself, and many others) who are willing to come to the table. A Christian cannot change the fact that the LGBT lifestyle is sinful in God’s eyes. But that doesn’t have to end in anything but peaceful coexistence.

            “And yet, if you have watched the clips you can see several of the men responsible for these “treatments” wearing signs of the clergy while their “facilities” refer directly to Christianity and the bible.”

            Yeah… like the Catholic priests who sexually abused children. You don’t have to look too hard to find Christians who were outraged by that either.

            These practices are condemned. By both the American Psychological / Psychiatric Association, the American Medical Association, the World Health Organization and several LGBT rights groups. They are outlawed in 9 states in the US and every time another state decides to join these 9 states there is an outcry, mostly by conservative religious organizations, people are taken away the chance to be cured of their homosexuality. But what governments and medical associations are doing is protecting people, especially minors, from unproven, dangerous practices that have zero basis in science when asking whether the therapies work and tons of scientific evidence about the dangers and the negative effects.

            There are a lot of things you and me agree on. However, you maintain the view Christianity is a good, benevolent religion, determined to do good to people and bring peace to the world. And you are probably right, IF you are a Christian. If you are not things don’t look so well for you with Christians in control.
You, as well as several others here, counter most of my arguments with the reasoning not all Christians are like that. But let me tell you 2 reasons why that argument doesn’t fly:
1. If you look hard enough you will probably find a few LGBTs that don’t hold a grudge against Christianity. That doesn’t mean the majority of us doesn’t;
2. You are the first, last and only Christian I have met so far who is not immediately hostile when dealing with LGBTs. 1 exception on hundreds of thousands of Christians who are hostile towards us is no reason for the LGBT community to feel safe. It’s reason to be even more vigilant than we already are.”

            I am no exception… and I personally know many others like me. You have said it yourself, you make every effort to avoid Christians. The only time you are willing to approach one is when you lash out in anger on chat forums. Not exactly giving us a fair chance to express God’s affirming love for all His people. Perhaps I have been the only Christian willing to endure your attacks while affirming that you are loved by God.

            “This quote, by Archbishop Anthony Fisher of Sydney, I just found on lifesitenews.com:
”The archbishop called for the freedom to disagree to be respected in law. “It is time now to come together as a nation, renew our friendships with those who think differently to us, and ensure that respect for different beliefs is clearly enshrined in our laws and customs.””
The article is about Australia voting overwhelmingly in favor of same-sex marriage. I wonder if Anthony Fisher would have called for respect and renewal of friendship if the “No” side would have won, just as we see and hear religious conservatives demand respect for opposite views since their views are not leading anymore. Personally, I doubt it.”

            And you are entitled to your cynicism. : – ) I would might even say it is warranted… but I would not say it is right.

            “Freedom to disagree…” hmm, that sounds familiar? : – )

  • Phoenix1977

    Nothing, if you want to openly discriminate against people and be brought to court for it. At least, in 32 states in the US.

  • Phoenix1977

    Yes, there will be losers if Jack Phillips wins: the LGBT community and everyone else who might get discriminated against in the future.

  • Martin Hahm

    WHY would anyone believe #FAKENEWS anymore, so exposed as slaves of Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals “dedicated to Lucifer,” Satan, a “liar from the beginning and the father of lies,” distorting truth, and telling outright lies?

  • vreed lak72

    Lot of misinformation in this

    (1) There was no fine. They’re not allowed under CO law.

    (2) Jack Phillips admitted during deposition that he doesn’t even make all of the wedding cakes. The employees of his corporation do – you know, the ones he fired after he decided to remove wedding cakes from the menu. How can it possibly be “his” artistic expression if someone else does the work.

    (3) There was no “re-education” program The baker was ordered to educate his employees about Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, which is a couple of paragraphs long. If a bakery is cited for violations of the health code and the state orders the owner to educate the employees about such health code (you know, so the violation doesn’t happen again), is that a re-education program?

    (4) He hasn’t rejected cakes for Halloween parties and adult-themed parties. The bakery doesn’t make Halloween-themed cakes and erotic cakes FOR ANY CUSTOMER. Such items aren’t the menu and are sold to no one. In addition, the anti-discrimination law only requires that the business not discriminate against customers based on the limited number of characteristics set forth in the law (race, color, religion, creed, national origin, gender, sexual orientation and marital status); otherwise, the business can refuse service for any other reason.