Trump And Jeff Sessions Say It Is Ok To Discriminate Against Gay People

What is the law that's being disputed? This guy never explains anything.

“A custom wedding cake can be sufficiently artistic to qualify as pure speech, akin to a sculptural centerpiece,” the Justice Department wrote. “In short, a custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian.”

If forced to create such a cake for a gay couple, the DOJ brief argues, Phillips would be required to essentially “participate in a wedding celebration that conflicts with his sincerely held religious beliefs.”

The Justice Department also noted that, at the time Phillips refused to make the cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig in July 2012, the state of Colorado did not recognize same-s*x marriages.

“In other words, the State itself did not acknowledge the validity of the union it sought to compel petitioners to celebrate,” DOJ wrote. “Especially given that background, the State has not advanced a sufficient state interest to override petitioners’ weighty First Amendment interest in declining to create the expression at issue here.”

In a statement, a Justice Department spokeswoman said the amicus brief was filed to protect the free expression of all Americans.

“Although public-accommodations laws serve important purposes, they ― like other laws ― must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees,” said spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam. “That includes the freedom not to create expression for ceremonies that violate one’s religious beliefs.”

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_59b1af6f...

The Jeff Sessions Department of Justice told the Supreme Court on Thursday that a baker who is religiously opposed to gay marriage should not be forced to make wedding cakes for same-s*x couples.

Do you think that it is OK to Discriminate Against Gay People, Steve?

I think it's a human right for a Christian baker, photographer, etc. to refuse to be part of a gay marriage or any other type of marriage for that matter. I consider the Christian religion to be false, on par with the white nationalists, but this is a nation that protects mistaken views and the free expression of them. I know the Bible as well as, probably better than you Ron, and it very clearly teaches its adherents that homos*xuality is a sin.

26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural s*xual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the s*xually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have s*x with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to s*xual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

If you are a professional at what you do, what difference does it make, what is the make-up of the people that place the order Steve, They are spending the same almighty dollar that is backed up by The United States government.

If you believe in the American way, it is not your position to judge a person because they are gay, or your religious persuasion, that is between them and GOD and GOD will hand out the punishment, this is something that you should know so well if you know the Bible better then myself.

We're not talking about you nor me Ron, we're talking about a Christian baker with own individual views. We're not talking about a commodity, we're talking about a wedding cake, created to celebrate a specific union of two persons. A wedding cake baker, or wedding photograper, becomes a participant in the wedding. Did this gay couple proceed with their wedding in 2012, or are they still waiting for the Supreme Court to force this baker to make their cake?

Is the sign "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" legal?

.... is it ok for a restaurant to reject service to a customer just because he doesn't like this customer?

.... what does law say here?

It seems that you can refuse service to anyone legally so long as he cannot prove you are discriminating him.

...... even if the restaurant owner is a discriminating, he can make up a "proper" reason and still reject the

service, and he can also provide no reason at all -- does the law say the owner needs a "proper" reason?

I see that you have quoted your first scripture from The Book of Romans 1:26-28 did you notice in that scripture that God done this because they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God. That's what I mean, when I said that the punishment for being gay was between God and that person.

In your second scripture, you have quoted from The Book of 1 Corinthians 6:9 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Quick question Steve, who has the kingdom of God, right now? I’ am sure that it not that cake baker who refuse his services to the Gay person, now is it?

In your third and last scripture you have quoted from The Book of Jude 1:5 if you have noticed that these are the sins of men and women and it will be at the time of judgment that he and he alone will issue out the punishment for disobeying God. Unless the baker, sessions and people like you has elevated yourselves to GOD STATUS, you can’t hold judgement over people who are GAY.

In The Book of Luke 6:37 King James Version (KJV) 37 Judge not, and ye shall not be judged: condemn not, and ye shall not be condemned: forgive, and ye shall be forgiven:
38 Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your bosom. For with the same measure that ye mete withal it shall be measured to you again.

Hey Robert, those are good questions. I wonder if Steve will answer those questions.

I think your Luke 6:37 answers the question Ron, "Quick question Steve, who has the kingdom of God, right now? I’ am sure that it not that cake baker who refuse his services to the Gay person, now is it?"

And I agree with Robert, .... what does law say here?

I asked you, who has the kingdom of God, right now?

The kingdom of God is possessed by God.

It took you long enough, that should not have taken you two questions in your type of diversionary tactics, to come to the point that God is in the possession of his kingdom.

Now if this is true, then that Baker had no right under Christian law, that this baker has the right to administer punishment because the potential customer was gay. That was not his job! I'm sure that the baker had nothing to do with them being gay.

When will this stop, is the undocumented (DACA) now, in 90 days. The Gay's will be next, when will they come for me? Will you be there to help me, march with me, would you do that Steve?

Because this is the type of administration Andy attitude in the atmosphere that's in the air.

I said nothing about Christian law. That baker thinks the same way as you Ron, that Christian law is the highest law. It's not.

It took you long enough, that response should've been the first thing come out of your mouth, The kingdom of heaven is in gods possession. Now with that said, that God will be the judge and issue out the punishment to the gays not a baker, I'm sure the gay people were spending United States back MONEY or was there no mention about that .

There are some questions that I asked you Steve, why have you not answer them yet?

ARE THESE YOUR WORDS: I said nothing about Christian law. Saturday, September 9th 2017 at 6:25PM THAT IS A LIE, STEVE AND YOU KNOW IT!! If we are not talking about Christian Law, then why did you use quotes from The Holy Bible as a defense?

ARE THESE YOUR WORDS: we're talking about a Christian baker with own individual views. Saturday, September 9th 2017 at 10:09AM Didn't the baker use Christianity as his reason to Discriminate Against Gay People?

Now that you are backed up on the walk, you are starting to forget things, like the main reason we are here in this discussion. We are here because of The White House has filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of the baker who refused to make a cake for gay couples. The brief argues that the business owner has every right to discriminate against anyone. Donald Trump and Attorney General Jeff Sessions believe that bigotry is ok, and that we have a right as Americans to discriminate against people.

When will this stop, is the undocumented (DACA) now, in 90 days. The Gay's will be next, when will they come for me? Will you be there to help me, march with me, or even die to fight for for freedom with me, against white supremacy or Neo-fascism would you do that Steve?

Because this is the type of administration Andy attitude in the atmosphere that's in the air.

Don't be so dramatic Ron, it's a wedding cake. The only thing that was damaged was a couple of overly sensitive egos. Let's get back to the Law. The highest law is the law of cause and condition, result and recompense.

P.S. Gays have nothing to fear from God.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Additional media resources available at right. To book an interview, click on the "Book an Interview" button.
Friday, September 08, 2017

Description: Two men filed a complaint with the state of Colorado after they asked cake artist Jack Phillips to design a wedding cake to celebrate their same-s*x ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted, but that he could not design a cake promoting a same-s*x ceremony because of his faith.

http://www.adfmedia.org/news/prdetail/8700

WASHINGTON – The U.S. Supreme Court has received at least 45 friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the freedom of a Colorado cake artist to decline to create custom artistic expression that celebrates events in conflict with his faith. The briefs filed in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission include support from the U.S. Department of Justice, 479 creative professionals, 20 states, 86 members of Congress, and a variety of legal experts, civil rights advocates, and religious groups.

Last month, Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Jack Phillips and his family business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, filed their opening brief in the case, which the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear after the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that a state law could force him to create custom artistic expression contrary to his faith.

“As the numerous briefs filed in this case affirm, artists and other expressive professionals should be able to peacefully live and work according to their beliefs without fear of punishment by the government,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who will argue before the high court on behalf of Phillips and his shop. “We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the arguments in these briefs and declare that the government cannot force Jack to surrender his freedom in order to run his family business. Regardless of one’s view on marriage, all Americans should support Jack: To have First Amendment freedoms for ourselves, we must respect those same freedoms for people with whom we disagree on important issues.” (#JusticeForJack)

The Colorado Supreme Court declined to take the case after the state’s Court of Appeals affirmed a Colorado Civil Rights Commission decision from May 2014. That decision ordered Phillips and his employees to design custom wedding cakes that celebrate same-s*x marriages if the shop designs wedding cakes for opposite-s*x marriages. It also required Phillips to re-educate his staff, most of whom are his family members—essentially telling them that he was wrong to operate his business according to his faith. He must also report to the government for two years, describing all cakes that he declines to create and the reasons why. As a result of the ruling, Phillips has lost an estimated 40 percent of his business.

The United States, in a brief that the U.S. Department of Justice filed, recognized that “a custom wedding cake is a form of expression…. It is an artistic creation that is both subjectively intended and objectively perceived as a celebratory symbol of a marriage.”

The states, in their brief, argue that governments “may not use their police power to truncate the First Amendment by compelling a person to create a piece of artwork—particularly one that violates the artist’s conscience.” They add that “this case happens to arise in the context of expression regarding same-s*x marriage. But the First Amendment principles that control here transcend, and will long outlast, the Nation’s current dialogue about same-s*x marriage.”

The nearly 500 creative professionals similarly assert, “Artistic speech, whether expressed through painting a picture, taking a photograph, or designing a cake, is constitutionally protected and should be treated as such. The expression should neither be silenced nor coerced. Though the concern is currently most pressing in the same-s*x wedding context, it is not so limited. Creative professionals of all stripes stand to suffer from undue compulsion, depending on how this Court rules here.”

In addition to the briefs filed in support of Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop, several briefs filed in support of neither party make important arguments that advance Phillips’s position, including one in which respected cake artists explain the intricate artistry involved in designing custom cakes.

Alliance Defending Freedom is an alliance-building, non-profit legal organization that advocates for the right of people to freely live out their faith.

BRIEF FOR THE UNITED STATES
AS AMICUS CURIAE SUPPORTING PETITIONERS
INTEREST OF THE UNITED STATES
This case concerns the application of the First Amendment to a state statute that bars discrimination in places of public accommodation on the basis of sev- eral protected characteristics. The United States has a substantial interest in the preservation of constitutional rights of free expression. It also has a substantial inter- est in the application of such rights in the context of the state statute here, which shares certain features with federal public accommodations laws, including Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 2000a et seq., and Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. 12181 et seq.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceA...

Talking about The Civil Rights Act which It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin witch is the law of the land today.

This take's me back to 1960 when four African American college students sat down at a lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, and politely asked for service. Their request was refused. When asked to leave, they remained in their seats. I wonder why, they was refused service?

You tried the religious angle by quoting scriptures from The Holy Bible to promote the bakers right to discriminate but was promptly shown the error of that defense. To this day you can't find anywhere in The Holy Bible that gives that baker or any person the right to discriminate against GAY'S so, the religious argument is mute.

Then you came back, to say: I said nothing about Christian law, which was a LIE, when you clearly quoted three Bible verses, that undoubtedly stated your intent to use The Holy Bible to prove your point that the Baker had the right to discriminate against GAY's but that to was a LIE.

Now you are using this: The U.S. Supreme Court has received at least 45 friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the freedom of a Colorado cake artist to decline to create custom artistic expression that celebrates events in conflict with his faith.

Steve, show me in The Holy Bible, that is mans job or the right to give out punishment in the form of discrimination against GAY'S? I would like to have this on your next reply, can you do that?

Then I asked you: "When will this stop, is the undocumented (DACA) now, in 90 days. The Gay's will be next, when will they come for me? Will you be there to help me, march with me, or even die to fight for freedom with me, against white supremacy or Neo-fascism would you do that Steve? Then you told me, Don't be so dramatic Ron,it's a wedding cake.

Steve, it is a wedding cake now, what will be next, Food services, medical services, job discrimination, this is the reason why white supremacy and Neo-fascism loves the Trump administration.


Then you said this, which topped the cake: P.S. Gays have nothing to fear from God.

Steve, what did those Bible scriptures that you used as some defense to your argument say about God's plans for the GUY'S? What dose this mean to you: 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the s*xually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have s*x with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I know that you recognize this quote because you choose it in your defense. What are these words saying to you?

That was an impressive recap Ron. By the way, have you read the brief?

Are you referring to those questions that I posted, if that is what you are talking about, what do you think, Steve?

!

I think that rather than trying to clarify what I said Ron, we should progress to the DOJ brief before us, that's the cause of so much fear of racism, bigotry and discrimination.

I want to get an understanding here Steve. I want to know if you was referring to those questions that I asked you, which you have not answered yet, why is this?

Here it is again:

Talking about The Civil Rights Act which It prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin witch is the law of the land today.

This take's me back to 1960 when four African American college students sat down at a lunch counter at Woolworth’s in Greensboro, North Carolina, and politely asked for service. Their request was refused. When asked to leave, they remained in their seats. I wonder why, they was refused service?

You tried the religious angle by quoting scriptures from The Holy Bible to promote the bakers right to discriminate but was promptly shown the error of that defense. To this day you can't find anywhere in The Holy Bible that gives that baker or any person the right to discriminate against GAY'S so, the religious argument is mute.

Then you came back, to say: I said nothing about Christian law, which was a LIE, when you clearly quoted three Bible verses, that undoubtedly stated your intent to use The Holy Bible to prove your point that the Baker had the right to discriminate against GAY's but that to was a LIE.

Now you are using this: The U.S. Supreme Court has received at least 45 friend-of-the-court briefs in support of the freedom of a Colorado cake artist to decline to create custom artistic expression that celebrates events in conflict with his faith.

Steve, show me in The Holy Bible, that is mans job or the right to give out punishment in the form of discrimination against GAY'S? I would like to have this on your next reply, can you do that?

Then I asked you: "When will this stop, is the undocumented (DACA) now, in 90 days. The Gay's will be next, when will they come for me? Will you be there to help me, march with me, or even die to fight for freedom with me, against white supremacy or Neo-fascism would you do that Steve? Then you told me, Don't be so dramatic Ron,it's a wedding cake.

Steve, it is a wedding cake now, what will be next, Food services, medical services, job discrimination, this is the reason why white supremacy and Neo-fascism loves the Trump administration.


Then you said this, which topped the cake: P.S. Gays have nothing to fear from God.

Steve, what did those Bible scriptures that you used as some defense to your argument say about God's plans for the GUY'S? What dose this mean to you: 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the s*xually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have s*x with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.

I know that you recognize this quote because you choose it in your defense. What are these words saying to you?

Of course you won't talk about the brief. Anything but the brief.

Steve, you have not answered a question I asked you about your own words, you are the one who took time to type these LIES of yours up.

Steve, let us start with this one question: show me in The Holy Bible, that is mans job or the right to give out punishment in the form of discrimination against GAY'S? I would like to have this on your next reply, can you do that!!!

I have not answered your questions Ron. Do you know any white gays, do you know any white christian cake artists? You do not.

YES STEVE, I knew a gay Marine Who Saved My Life. He took a bullet for me that I know was attended hit this Mark and not him.

YES, I know a few white Christians but what does your question have to do with the just sessions sad interpretation to say that it's okay to discriminate against gays?

Steve, let us start with this one question: show me in The Holy Bible, that is mans job or the right to give out punishment in the form of discrimination against GAY'S? I would like to have this on your next reply, can you do that!!

There was no discrimination Ron, which you would know if you had looked past Farron Cousin's fanfare and read this brief. You don't give a damn about a white christian baker or a gay couple supposedly wronged, you know nothing about this civil case, you know nothing about Sessions or who filed this amicus curiae brief or why, nothing about the courts, workings of the law or anything except your incessant hatred of the President.

We are talking about faith and scriptures you quoted out of The Holy Bible and not Farron Cousin's. Judging by your denial to come up with any scriptures that will backup the baker's faith, people like yourself, Jeff sessions and Donald J Trump is working on a false premise over religious faith, when the Holy Bible has nothing to do with discrimination against gays. You are wrong as hell when you say the baker or any other person in business has the right to discriminate against any person regardless of s*x, racial identity, or religion which is based on his religion. All of this is a LIE, that you bought into Steve, you have no basis in fact whatsoever, that is the reason why you can't prove your case from any Christian source.

I know you tried to find any such proof but yet, you came up with a zero in this Baker's discrimination matter. You have failed to prove anything on this subject, how sad how you are trying to reverse the topic on me giving a damn. Sir let me tell you something you have no idea who I am, what I care about, in this word hate is not in my lexicon of characters.

Pardon me.... You are looking real foolish now without any proof to back your statements up, none whatsoever, what a shame, FuFu.

We need to look no farther than the TITLE of your blog Ron, to see who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. Your posts are as SHALLOW as they come.

By the way Ron, the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the petitioners and the DOJ will be proven correct. Also by the way, President Trump has nothing to do with this case.

It was Trump who appointed Jeff Sessions Who Was Deemed Too Racist To Be A Federal Judge. He’ll Now Be Trump’s Attorney General. I am sure that you remember this story.

The man who President-elect Donald Trump will nominate as the 84th attorney general of the United States was once rejected as a federal judge over allegations he called a black attorney “boy,” suggested a white lawyer working for black clients was a race traitor, joked that the only issue he had with the Ku Klux Klan was their drug use, and referred to civil rights groups as “un-American” organizations trying to “force civil rights down the throats of people who were trying to put problems behind them.”

You remember this backwards thinking racist don't you?

I see that you want to talk around anything else but this topic.

YOUR WORDS: We need to look no farther than the TITLE of your blog Ron, to see who knows what they're talking about and who doesn't. Your posts are as SHALLOW as they come.

If my post are as SHALLOW as they come. Then answer my question, where do you find any proof in The King James Version of The Holy Bible where it says that it is OK to discriminate against gays. If this post is so SHALLOW, then you can see through to the bottom of this question and point to scripture that backs up your point that the baker can discriminate by way of his faith.

I am still waiting for your reply.

I'm still waiting for you to correctly quote me Ron. When you do then we can continue.

Correctly quote you about what, Steve? Every LIE I have caught you in, came directly from your printed thoughts.

Are you talking about this. You tried the religious angle by quoting scriptures from The Holy Bible to promote the bakers right to discriminate but was promptly shown the error of that defense. To this day you can't find anywhere in The Holy Bible that gives that baker or any person the right to discriminate against GAY'S so, the religious argument is mute.


Are you talking about those three Bible Quotes which clearly tells you that God will do the punishment and that is not man's responsibility.

What are you talking about illogical and Irrational one.

Let's review, forgetful one. What you asked is "Do you think that it is OK to Discriminate Against Gay People, Steve?" What I answered is, the Bible "very clearly teaches its adherents that homos*xuality is a sin."

Let's review, forgetful one. What you asked is "Do you think that it is OK to Discriminate Against Gay People, Steve?" What I answered is, the Bible "very clearly teaches its adherents that homos*xuality is a sin."

So, do you think that it is the bakers job to discriminate Against Gay People according to his faith?

Then I asked you can you find where in The Holy Bible, when GOD gave that bakers job or Sessions or the President the power to discriminate against the Gay's.

Where is that scripture or scriptures, Steve? It had been since Saturday, September 9th 2017 at 9:38AM when you wrongly gave your last Bible quotation. Quote that scripture that gives that baker, sessions or the president the power, to discriminate or issue out punishment against that gay couple, can you do that on your next reply?

The point your missing Ron is that I, and the DOJ, don't think this case is an issue of discrimination. We think it is a issue of free speech, our most fundamental human and constitutional freedom. I myself am in no way anti-gay, as I've said I'm queer myself, but I would likely not be interested in photographing a gay wedding unless the couple were personal friends. It's a matter of my own or Jack Phillip's or any other artist's freedom to express our individual creativity, or not, as we choose.

Though I'm happy to talk about whether the Bible teaches discrimination. It's just not relevant in this case.

Then if it is not relevant then why did you bring up these three Bible quotes to the floor in this conversation?

You do remember these three Bible quotations of yours, don't you?: 26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural s*xual relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their error. 28 Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done.
Saturday, September 9th 2017 at 9:33AM

And this one.

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the s*xually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have s*x with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
Saturday, September 9th 2017 at 9:36AM

and last, this one:

5 Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6 And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their proper dwelling—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7 In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to s*xual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. 8 In the very same way, on the strength of their dreams these ungodly people pollute their own bodies, reject authority and heap abuse on celestial beings.
Saturday, September 9th 2017 at 9:38AM

Steve, this is your talking points that you thought that you would make some points with these Bible quotation but once you found out that the Christian religion does not give any person the right to discriminate Against Gay People according to his faith, your argument fell apart, in your face.

Now these three Bible quotations are now not relevant. Why did you bring them up in the first place?

In my second comment on this blog I quoted from the Huffington Post.

“Although public-accommodations laws serve important purposes, they ― like other laws ― must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees,” said spokeswoman Lauren Ehrsam. “That includes the freedom not to create expression for ceremonies that violate one’s religious beliefs.”

The DOJ said Phillips has religious beliefs, but it said nothing about whether the Bible teaches discrimination or not.

What the DOJ does say in summary of its arguments, at the very end of this 34 page brief is the following.

6 Because the application of Colorado’s public accommodations law to petitioners violates the Free Speech Clause, the United States does not address the parties’ arguments regarding the Free Exercise Clause.

I referenced the Bible verses because I myself understand why Phillips sincerely holds his religious views about gay marriage. The DOJ does not reference Biblical teaching about gays, and it's ridiculous to think any of the Supreme Court justices will consider Biblical teaching about gays a factor in their decision.

If the DOJ had thought the Free Exercise clause would be relevant to the Court's decision, they would have addressed it in their brief.

YOUR WORDS: I referenced the Bible verses because I myself understand why Phillips sincerely holds his religious views about gay marriage. Since you understand why Phillips sincerely holds his religious views about gay marriage.

Since you understand why the baker withdrew his services or did not provide his services to the gay couple, as he falls back on his religious beliefs, then explain to me, where did he get the nerve to claim that serving gay people, violated his Religious Beliefs as his defense?

Phillips isn't concerned about serving gay people Ron.

"Phillips informed the couple that he does not create wedding cakes for same-s*x weddings, but that he would make them any other type of cake or other baked good."

He also doesn't create cakes for Halloween. Does that mean he's guilty of religious discrimination?

Samhain/Calan Gaeaf marked the end of the harvest season and beginning of winter or the 'darker half' of the year.[42][43] Like Beltane/Calan Mai, it was seen as a liminal time, when the boundary between this world and the Otherworld thinned. This meant the Aos Sí (pronounced /iːˈʃiː/ ees-SHEE), the 'spirits' or 'fairies', could more easily come into our world and were particularly active.[44][45] Most scholars see the Aos Sí as "degraded versions of ancient gods [...] whose power remained active in the people's minds even after they had been officially replaced by later religious beliefs". The Aos Sí were both respected and feared, with individuals often invoking the protection of God when approaching their dwellings.[46][47] At Samhain, it was believed that the Aos Sí needed to be propitiated to ensure that the people and their livestock survived the winter. Offerings of food and drink, or portions of the crops, were left outside for the Aos Sí.[48][49][50] The souls of the dead were also said to revisit their homes seeking hospitality.[51] Places were set at the dinner table and by the fire to welcome them.[52] The belief that the souls of the dead return home on one night of the year and must be appeased seems to have ancient origins and is found in many cultures throughout the world.[53] In 19th century Ireland, "candles would be lit and prayers formally offered for the souls of the dead. After this the eating, drinking, and games would begin".[54]

Throughout Ireland and Britain, the household festivities included rituals and games intended to foretell one's future, especially regarding death and marriage.[55] Apples and nuts were often used in these divination rituals. They included apple bobbing, nut roasting, scrying or mirror-gazing, pouring molten lead or egg whites into water, dream interpretation, and others.[56] Special bonfires were lit and there were rituals involving them. Their flames, smoke and ashes were deemed to have protective and cleansing powers, and were also used for divination.[41][42] In some places, torches lit from the bonfire were carried sunwise around homes and fields to protect them.[41] It is suggested that the fires were a kind of imitative or sympathetic magic – they mimicked the Sun, helping the "powers of growth" and holding back the decay and darkness of winter.[52][57][58] In Scotland, these bonfires and divination games were banned by the church elders in some parishes.[59] Later, these bonfires served to keep "away the devil".[60]

This is another prime example of if you can't dazzle them with your brilliance, baffle them with BULL💩, WOW!!!

Now you know full well that this subject is not about Halloween, enough said. Excuse me!!! When you want to talk about the subject matter and answer my question of: Since you understand why the baker withdrew his services or did not provide his services to the gay couple, as he falls back on his religious beliefs, then explain to me, where did he get the nerve to claim that serving gay people, violated his Religious Beliefs as his defense?

I will get back with you...

"Phillips informed the couple that he does not create wedding cakes for same-s*x weddings, but that he would make them any other type of cake or other baked good."

Phillips is a Christian who seeks to incorporate his religious principles into all facets of his business. Id. at 281a. To that end, for example, he closes Masterpiece on Sundays, refuses to sell goods containing alcohol, and chooses not to create or sell goods relating to Halloween.

Can we put the christianThoughts on hold...........

---- Bruce Jenner...Olympic Decathlete ON Wheaties BOX is NOW....Catlin Jenner--grandma and PA

If I saw that coming near me ... I WOULD CROSS the STREET ... HOLD on to my Wallet......

Now you know full well that this subject is not about the Baker selling alcohol or sell goods relating to Halloween, enough said. Excuse me!!! When you want to talk about the subject matter and answer my question of: Since you understand why the baker withdrew his services or did not provide his services to the gay couple, as he falls back on his religious beliefs, then explain to me, where did he get the nerve to claim that serving gay people, violated his Religious Beliefs as his defense?

It is about all those things Ron, rum cakes, Halloween cakes, and rainbow frosting cakes. Jack Phillips has the constitutional right to make any damn kind of cake he wants, or not.

No Steve, the only thing here relevant here is "Trump And Jeff Sessions Say It Is Ok To Discriminate Against Gay People !!!!

Which they said no such thing Ron. Another one of your frequent lies.

The subject of this blog is Trump And Jeff Sessions Say It Is Ok To Discriminate Against Gay People and that is a FACT.

It's a fact that is your title AND a lie. That it is a lie is proven by the DOJ brief, which anyone who reads the brief can plainly see.

Tell me where is the LIE? keep in mind, the baker lost his case in the lower courts but The United States Supreme Court agreed to review the case. I took the time to read parts of this Amicus Brief, Department of Justice https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/charli... and this Trump administration’s brief in the Supreme Court's anti-gay baker case is cynical, dishonest, and embarrassing.

The Baker alleges that Colorado is violating both his right to free speech and his right to free exercise of religion. The latter claim is frivolous, even you could not find any scripture in The Holy Bible that tells that baker that he can discriminate against GAY PEOPLE and the Lord knows you tried to find such scripture by your sad attempt to present three such scriptures but even those told you THE LORD THY GOD was going to do the punishing and not that baker. so he could not be talking about his religious belief because there is NONE stating anything against GAY'S. That was round ONE, the bell ring and you staged back to your corner, shaken, stunned, dazed and traumatized.

For decades, the Supreme Court has held that a neutral law of general applicability does not run afoul of the First Amendment if it imposes incidental burdens on religious freedom.

Courts have long assumed that states have an overriding interest in eradicating discrimination, and may require businesses to treat all customers equally without violating freedom of expression. Steve, that means that all businesses should treat all people doing business equally.

I think that you are siding with anti-gay activist groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom have asserted that nondiscrimination laws infringe on free speech when they are used to protect same-s*x couples.

This group is representing the baker, which is no surprise: It opposes LGBTQ nondiscrimination laws and has also argued for the criminalization of homos*xuality and the mandatory sterilization of transgender people and that is not right at all, it is inhumane.

I think that the Department is weighing in on this case. The DOJ’s involvement is utterly gratuitous, likely a political ploy designed to shore up support among President Donald Trump’s anti-LGBTQ base.

I took a close reading of the DOJ’s brief reveals that it makes no sense as anything other than partisan pandering. If its goal is to persuade the court, it will likely backfire: The brief’s dismissive attitude toward the dignity of same-s*x couples will certainly alienate Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote will be necessary for ADF to triumph.

In my opinion Carving out a First Amendment exception to nondiscrimination laws would blow a hole through the modern civil rights regime, fatally undermining legal protections for all minority groups.

Thank you for your suggestion to read "Amicus Brief," it puts a brighter light on this subject.

That's why the United States is not arguing the Free Exercise clause. Their argument is only on the Free Speech clause. Thanks for reading Ron!!!

No Steve, The Bakers main point is arguing the Free Exercise. There will be arguing both side of this case.

But the Court needs rule on only on the Free Speech clause. Watch.

This case will be interesting. So far for the baker 0-1

The question Ron is will you be paying attention in 2 months? My guess is no.

Fat chance Facebook will even be able to find this blog in 2 months, buriied under hundreds and hundreds of "reports."

YOU WISH... And you want be able to talk on the subject then neither.