PDA

View Full Version : Jack Phillips Strikes Back at Colorado's Anti-Christian Attacks




Swordsmyth
12-18-2018, 03:44 PM
Masterpiece Cakeshop baker Jack Phillips is back in court today, going on the offense after Colorado officials came after him a second time. This time it's because he declined to celebrate an LGBT activist's transgender transition from male to female. With the state's relentless attacks against his faith, Phillips has decided to sue the state. The Alliance Defending Freedom is representing Phillips, stating, "The very same state agencies decided to go after him a second time. If that isn't government hostility towards people of faith, what is?"
"Jack had no choice but to file a federal lawsuit to defend himself from this targeting. He should not have to fear government punishment for his faith when he opens his cake shop for business every day. But it appears that Colorado will not stop harassing him until he closes down or agrees to violate his faith," the ADF website states. (https://www.adflegal.org/detailspages/blog-details/allianceedge/2018/12/17/an-important-day-in-jack-phillips-fight-for-his-freedoms)


The state agency acting against Phillips lost at the US Supreme Court this past June in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, with justices specifically blasting the commissioners for hostility towards Phillips' religious beliefs. Those commissioners nearly killed Phillips' business when they ruled he'd discriminated by refusing to make a cake to celebrate a homosexual couple's same-sex marriage. The commission is going after the Christian baker a second time, now for his refusal to bake a transgender celebration cake.
Phillips' friend Jeff Hunt, a policy analyst at Colorado Christian University, told CBN News, "At this point, they're just targeting Christians. This is outright Christian persecution."
This time around, though, constitutional attorney Jenna Ellis believes the commission will be more subtle.
Ellis stated, "The Masterpiece decision was very particular to the commission, to say 'you cannot be overtly hostile.' So now what they're doing is they're just going to say, 'Well, we won't be as obvious about our hostility, but we still want to go after Jack."
Meanwhile, Phillips and his lawyers are going on offense by suing the Colorado bureaucrats.
Hunt said of them, "They're actually striking back and saying 'this is just outright persecution. You're not interested in stopping discrimination. You're interested in hunting Christians down.'"
Ellis believes the suit is a smart idea. She said, "If Christians are always only on the defensive, then we're going to continue to lose ground. We have to be also making sure that we're standing up and we're standing forward."
Ellis and Hunt warn people of faith should be deeply concerned about their religious freedom given some of today's leaders and officials.
"Even after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission heard from the US Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision, including Obama appointees, telling them to stop targeting people of faith, the government essentially ignored it," Hunt said.

More at: http://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2018/october/colorado-strikes-at-christian-baker-jack-phillips-again-hellip-and-he-strikes-back

Suzanimal
12-19-2018, 03:58 AM
Jesus Christ. They're just not gonna leave this man alone.

DamianTV
12-19-2018, 04:38 AM
I would put money that whoever is trying to sue him now did it intentionally because they knew damn good and well it would result in a lawsuit. Again INTENTIONAL.

People do have the FREEDOM to choose to shop where ever the hell they want. And THAT is the reason that I am highly suspicious of people choosing to try to do business with a guy who is known to stand up for his right to believe what ever the hell he wants to believe. If those people wanted to be happy, they would have supported a different business, and thereby that business owner if they are more accommodating to LGBTBBQWTFROFLSCUBA Genders.

TheCount
12-19-2018, 05:39 AM
He shouldn't have to bake their cakes, but he should have to host their blog posts and videos on his shop's website.

CaptUSA
12-19-2018, 06:56 AM
I would put money that whoever is trying to sue him now did it intentionally because they knew damn good and well it would result in a lawsuit. Again INTENTIONAL.

People do have the FREEDOM to choose to shop where ever the hell they want. And THAT is the reason that I am highly suspicious of people choosing to try to do business with a guy who is known to stand up for his right to believe what ever the hell he wants to believe. If those people wanted to be happy, they would have supported a different business, and thereby that business owner if they are more accommodating to LGBTBBQWTFROFLSCUBA Genders.

How hard would it be for someone to ask another baker in the state to bake a cake that offends his sensibilities?? Ask a Jewish baker to make a Nazi cake. Ask a black baker to make a KKK cake. Whatever.

Then, see if this "civil rights commission" would apply their same standards? If not, then that is clear evidence that they are not interested in equal protection. Seems like the easiest case to win, ever.

shakey1
12-19-2018, 07:15 AM
https://i.pinimg.com/736x/69/88/5b/69885b47946ef85cdd540ab1ba0aba1e--divorce-cakes-divorce-party.jpg

specsaregood
12-19-2018, 07:32 AM
How hard would it be for someone to ask another baker in the state to bake a cake that offends his sensibilities?? Ask a Jewish baker to make a Nazi cake. Ask a black baker to make a KKK cake. Whatever.

Then, see if this "civil rights commission" would apply their same standards? If not, then that is clear evidence that they are not interested in equal protection. Seems like the easiest case to win, ever.

Those are not protected groups with special privileges, you'd lose the case.

H_H
12-19-2018, 08:20 AM
I would put money that whoever is trying to sue him now did it intentionally because they knew good and well it would result in a lawsuit. Again INTENTIONAL.

Damian, the first incident was an intentional set-up, too. He was deliberately targeted, chosen after careful consideration and planning. This is all public record. No one contests this; the conspirators have openly admitted it.

Jack Phillips is a good and courageous man and deserves every good American's enthusiastic support. I endorse him without any reservation.

Jack stood up -- and is still standing up -- for God and Family, Faith and Country. He deserves our support. But even if nobody supports him, he'll stand up just the same. He took on the Globohomo hegemon without fear, never flinching. And like for instance Ron Paul, he is a good, upstanding man of fine character, who took the time to raise good children, who has quietly led exemplary life.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wzxIPRUEOw

http://masterpiececakes.com/




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uQrf67EItY0



He is someone we can look up to and hold up as an example of how to live. He is doing his part to save civilization.

euphemia
12-19-2018, 08:28 AM
Just pointing out that the latest case involves a transgender attorney.

H_H
12-19-2018, 09:17 AM
He shouldn't have to bake their cakes, but he should have to host their blog posts and videos on his shop's website.
Ha! Yes! See, this is why you've gotta cool it with the drunk posts and keep things discrete-like. I need you around, my friend, if only as a foil.

And of course you believe the gym owner should be able to have a men-only gym. Or even a White Straight Men Only gym 8^O ! All businesses should be able to prohibit twisted perverts from preying on little girls by using the girls' bathrooms, right?

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5000666/Transgender-woman-guilty-sexually-assaulting-girl-10.html

I'm suurre that's part of your belief system. ;^) B^). 'Cause you're all about an extreme and consistent commitment to freedom and liberty. Right?

Everybody should be able to do whatever they want, because PROPERTY. You, Wonka, are all about PROPERTY and the Sacred, Immortal RIGHTS THEREOF. Tru dat, man, tru dat. Like, Alabama should be able to put up the Ten Commandments in their courthouse, because, obviously: THEIR courthouse (their property, their rules).

Brigham Young University should be able to kick people out for using porno.
Harvard should be able to kick people out for being asian.

Noel, Missouri should be able to put up Nativity scenes on every corner in town.
San Francisco, California should be able to put up a 10-story dildo in the middle of town (and require all their elementary-age school children to make an annual field trip to it to learn all about it).

Borough Park, Brooklyn (and Broward County, Florida and other fine Jewish communities) should be able to have laws requiring string to be strung up everywhere enabling Sabbath walking distance compliance.
Penacook, New Hampshire should be free to not demolish but rather keep using a historic library with stairs and narrow doors.

Cause you're all about freedom, baby. Right?

It's Freedom, Baby!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-0VNsLgrEGM

Wonka, if you had your way you'd repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Time Broadcasting Act, the No God and No Prayer in Schools laws, the Love and Protection for Weiner-Whackers laws, Affirmative Action, the Minimum Wage, the Forty-Hour Workweek, Clean Air and Water, Worker Protection, and indeed Food and Clothing itself. And then we'd all be starving in the streets, naked, but at least we'd have:

FREEDOM, BABY!

Amirite?


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uCeTsaJOXDw

specsaregood
12-19-2018, 09:25 AM
He shouldn't have to bake their cakes, but he should have to host their blog posts and videos on his shop's website.

I think the difference is, those sites hosing videos and blogs and taking advantage of laws that protective them as common carriers by stating they aren't responsible for content, but at the same time those protections carry with them the requirement to not discriminate.

Of course in a free market, everybody should be able to do what they want, but they are willingly taking special govt protections, so they should have to follow its limitations as well.

Origanalist
12-19-2018, 10:57 AM
Those are not protected groups with special privileges, you'd lose the case.

You would end up being the subject of a FBI investigation and labeled by the SPLC as a hate group.

Grandmastersexsay
12-19-2018, 03:17 PM
I think the difference is, those sites hosing videos and blogs and taking advantage of laws that protective them as common carriers by stating they aren't responsible for content, but at the same time those protections carry with them the requirement to not discriminate.

Of course in a free market, everybody should be able to do what they want, but they are willingly taking special govt protections, so they should have to follow its limitations as well.

Is it their own content that they are publishing? No? Then they are not a publisher.

If moderation turned a website into a publisher, practically the entire internet would be considered publishers. If you think that's a good idea, think about who has the most money and manpower for litigation. Is it people like George Soros or the liberty movement? How quick would Right leaning websites, and even small sites like this get shut down because it won't be worth it for them to fight frivolous lawsuits?

You think making Google, Twitter, and Facebook be labeled publishers will help your cause, but it will do the opposite. They are the ones who can afford the cost of litigation. You'll strengthen their market share and silence their opposition.

Swordsmyth
12-19-2018, 03:20 PM
Is it their own content that they are publishing? No? Then they are not a publisher.

If moderation turned a website into a publisher, practically the entire internet would be considered publishers. If you think that's a good idea, think about who has the most money and manpower for litigation. Is it people like George Soros or the liberty movement? How quick would Right leaning websites, and even small sites like this get shut down because it won't be worth it for them to fight frivolous lawsuits?

You think making Google, Twitter, and Facebook be labeled publishers will help your cause, but it will do the opposite. They are the ones who can afford the cost of litigation. You'll strengthen their market share and silence their opposition.
The big problem is their false claims of neutrality.

Grandmastersexsay
12-19-2018, 03:33 PM
Wonka, if you had your way you'd repeal the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Civil Rights Act, the Equal Time Broadcasting Act, the No God and No Prayer in Schools laws, the Love and Protection for Weiner-Whackers laws, Affirmative Action, the Minimum Wage, the Forty-Hour Workweek, Clean Air and Water, Worker Protection, and indeed Food and Clothing itself. And then we'd all be starving in the streets, naked, but at least we'd have:

FREEDOM, BABY!

Amirite?

Most of that sounds great.

TheCount
12-19-2018, 07:18 PM
*autistic screeching*
Welcome back. How was the rally?

Grandmastersexsay
12-19-2018, 07:45 PM
The big problem is their false claims of neutrality.

That is a problem. Perhaps false advertising?

What is the solution though? Do you really want these companies to be defined as publishers? Do you understand what that would mean? If someone on here posted about Hillary killing some more people, Hillary could not only sue the owner of RPF, but win.

What would result? Sites, bigger and smaller than RPF, would either disallow any controversial discussions or close down. Does this really sound like a good solution to the bias from big name tech companies? I'd rather let the free market be the answer.

H_H
12-19-2018, 10:33 PM
*autistic screeching*


How insensitive!

To the austistic, that is. Of course.

No, what I'm pushing in the above is more like:

You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

Anybody remember that forward? Good times.

H_H
12-19-2018, 10:47 PM
That is a problem. Perhaps false advertising?

What is the solution though? Do you really want these companies to be defined as publishers? Do you understand what that would mean? If someone on here posted about Hillary killing some more people, Hillary could not only sue the owner of RPF, but win.

What would result? Sites, bigger and smaller than RPF, would either disallow any controversial discussions or close down. Does this really sound like a good solution to the bias from big name tech companies? I'd rather let the free market be the answer.
Grandmaster, man, I appreciate you have clearly put some thought into this issue.

Put in some more.

This is THE issue of our day. Nothing else matters. If we have free speech, we can win, because right-wing ideas have reality on their side, thus they win the debate. Leftists know this which is why they generally do not debate (at least the smart ones don't), they turn to censorship. If we don't, though... the thousand year night. Pretty bleak.

Right now they are trying to turn the internet into what TV is: completely controlled, and never saying anything outside of the lines that have been drawn for us by certain people. They're gradually doing it, deplatforming increasingly milquetoast individuals (first Anglin, then Milo, then Lauren Southern, then Alex Jones, and now last week Sargon. Next on the chopping block will be alt-lite people like Molyneux and Paul Joseph Watson, but also far more importantly: Pew Die Pie.

Their plan is working so far. Kinda. Mostly. I'd say it's working.

But we can't let it. So you come up with a way to stop it. Mull it over. Seriously, I think you could come up with something great. If not, someone reading this could. Thanks.

r3volution 3.0
12-19-2018, 10:52 PM
So long as these people make their arguments on first amendment/religious freedom grounds, I'm uninterested.

Wake me up when somebody remembers what property rights are, and challenges this nonsense on those grounds.

The religious argument is just another form of special pleading for special rights for special sub-groups of the population.

..."O, you offended my religious sensibilities..."

Go fuck yourself...

How about: "I own the damn shop, and I'll serve whomever I damn please, because I own it."

Grandmastersexsay
12-20-2018, 06:51 AM
Grandmaster, man, I appreciate you have clearly put some thought into this issue.

Put in some more.

This is THE issue of our day. Nothing else matters. If we have free speech, we can win, because right-wing ideas have reality on their side, thus they win the debate. Leftists know this which is why they generally do not debate (at least the smart ones don't), they turn to censorship. If we don't, though... the thousand year night. Pretty bleak.

Right now they are trying to turn the internet into what TV is: completely controlled, and never saying anything outside of the lines that have been drawn for us by certain people. They're gradually doing it, deplatforming increasingly milquetoast individuals (first Anglin, then Milo, then Lauren Southern, then Alex Jones, and now last week Sargon. Next on the chopping block will be alt-lite people like Molyneux and Paul Joseph Watson, but also far more importantly: Pew Die Pie.

Their plan is working so far. Kinda. Mostly. I'd say it's working.

But we can't let it. So you come up with a way to stop it. Mull it over. Seriously, I think you could come up with something great. If not, someone reading this could. Thanks.

I get it. You think if Google Et al. are threatened that if they don't stop censoring they'll be considered a publisher. They won't. They'll take the hit and fight some defamation law suits. They can afford it. Meanwhile, all the small sites that don't censor right or libertarian views will shut down.

This will not help free speech, this will hurt it.

CaptUSA
12-20-2018, 07:04 AM
So long as these people make their arguments on first amendment/religious freedom grounds, I'm uninterested.

Wake me up when somebody remembers what property rights are, and challenges this nonsense on those grounds.

The religious argument is just another form of special pleading for special rights for special sub-groups of the population.

..."O, you offended my religious sensibilities..."

Go fuck yourself...

How about: "I own the damn shop, and I'll serve whomever I damn please, because I own it."

^This^


When you consider each transaction to be a "trade", then everyone is buying and selling at the same time. You are buying my FRN's with your cake. Simple as that.

Imagine how ridiculous it would be to insist that each person who had FRN's would have to sell them to whoever wanted them?!

specsaregood
12-20-2018, 07:33 AM
Is it their own content that they are publishing? No? Then they are not a publisher.

If moderation turned a website into a publisher, practically the entire internet would be considered publishers. If you think that's a good idea, think about who has the most money and manpower for litigation. Is it people like George Soros or the liberty movement? How quick would Right leaning websites, and even small sites like this get shut down because it won't be worth it for them to fight frivolous lawsuits?

You think making Google, Twitter, and Facebook be labeled publishers will help your cause, but it will do the opposite. They are the ones who can afford the cost of litigation. You'll strengthen their market share and silence their opposition.

I'm on record here multiple times that I think those fucks should be able to do whatever the fuck they want with their shitty websites. But, at the same time I think there is a legal case against them for taking advantage of special protections; but not abiding by the limitations required to get those protections. These are laws they seemingly support, so apply it equally, change, or delete the law.

Grandmastersexsay
12-20-2018, 09:03 AM
I'm on record here multiple times that I think those $#@!s should be able to do whatever the $#@! they want with their $#@!ty websites. But, at the same time I think there is a legal case against them for taking advantage of special protections; but not abiding by the limitations required to get those protections. These are laws they seemingly support, so apply it equally, change, or delete the law.

As it is now, they are afforded protection because they are not considered a publisher. A publisher can be held liable for defamation.

The argument made by people that want them to be labeled publishers is that since they moderate their content, and purposely silence certain opinions, they are effectively publishers.

The problem is that if you define these platforms as publishers, any website that moderates the content on their website will also be considered publishers and be liable for what is posted on that website.

Do you understand how bad that would be? I can't think of a single website that allows discussions and doesn't moderate their site. Do you want sites like RPF, reddit, or wikipedia to be considered publishers. If they are considered publishers, they simply won't exist. They don't have the money or man power to effectively moderate the content posted on their sites. Before you say anything about that being a stipulation for not being a publisher, Google Et al. can make the same claim.

Keep in mind, this won't stop Google or Facebook from censoring content. It will only punish them financially. It won't incentivize them to stop censoring. So do you really want to give up all that just to say fuck you to the big tech companies? Cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.

specsaregood
12-20-2018, 09:37 AM
As it is now, they are afforded protection because they are not considered a publisher. A publisher can be held liable for defamation.

The argument made by people that want them to be labeled publishers is that since they moderate their content, and purposely silence certain opinions, they are effectively publishers.

The problem is that if you define these platforms as publishers, any website that moderates the content on their website will also be considered publishers and be liable for what is posted on that website.

Do you understand how bad that would be? I can't think of a single website that allows discussions and doesn't moderate their site. Do you want sites like RPF, reddit, or wikipedia to be considered publishers. If they are considered publishers, they simply won't exist. They don't have the money or man power to effectively moderate the content posted on their sites. Before you say anything about that being a stipulation for not being a publisher, Google Et al. can make the same claim.

Keep in mind, this won't stop Google or Facebook from censoring content. It will only punish them financially. It won't incentivize them to stop censoring. So do you really want to give up all that just to say fuck you to the big tech companies? Cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.

I haven't ever supported it; but its obvious that a valid legal argument can be made. And one could support it and not be a hypocrite, as it is a completely different issue than the bake the cake bullshit.

aGameOfThrones
12-20-2018, 11:19 AM
https://pics.me.me/i-find-it-amusing-when-your-demand-for-complete-tolerance-7113903.png

H_H
12-20-2018, 05:20 PM
I get it. You think if Google Et al. are threatened that if they don't stop censoring they'll be considered a publisher. I didn't say what I think, man. I think a whole lot of things. Like, everything at once. Kind of how I am. Anyway. But give me something new. And then I'll think that, too.

Here's one thought: the elite have put some serious cash into the Net Neutrality meme. They got people literally in the streets demonstrating for.... Netflix's ability to rip off Comcast. I don't really have a dog in that fight either way, but point is: neither did those demonstrators. But they loved the phrase "Net Neutrality," and they thought it had something to do with free speech. What that means is: it's a meme ripe for hijacking.

If you could come up with a policy that somehow did have something to do with free speech, that somehow would give us free speech on the internet, and promoted it as Net Neutrality, that's the winner.

What policy? It could be something as simple as "the First Amendment applies to the internet. That means it applies to internet monopolies, and in fact to all monopolies. That means there are three to seven massive corporations with a monopoly in their given area who are henceforth required to respect free speech. They can never ban anyone for their political opinions again. They can never ban anyone for any speech which is not illegal in America." Boom., That would do it, would it not? And that's how it already is offline. The electric company can't shut you down because you said a word that was too bad or made a joke that was too hilarious. Visa can't shut you down for that either. But yet Paypal can. And does. Cloudflare can. Hmm. Pretty closely analogous, eh? And obviously Google and Facebook and Twitter can.

The online bizes are opping on a totally different set of rules than the mortar bizes. And everything online is technically, theoretically a "private" company in some convoluted intellectual sense. And more and more of what the world consists of equals online, so the end result is that there will be no public square anywhere. Total shut down.

Now maybe it's a violation of SACRED HOLY PROPERTY that people like Wonka and "monarchy-rev-now" 3P0 care soooo deeply and sincerely about I am sure. It probably is. But it's kind of nice for free speech that even David Duke's and Lyndon LaRouche and whoever else kook you want to name from fifty years ago never had their electricity supply in question. Not even on the table. But all our lovable kooks today are being systematically shut. freaking. down. They are having their domain names stolen, even. Oh, the domain name system? That's private companies, too.

Seriously, this is a huge problem. I can't even speak freely on this very site, at this very moment. We have no free speech. And we need it. Otherwise everyone to the right of Paul Ryan is going to get kicked off the internet and thus out of the public sphere and in fact out of life. We should just start guillotining everyone who won't make annual loyalty oaths to SJW principles: it would be cleaner and more humane.

H_H
12-20-2018, 05:27 PM
^This^

Are you literal? Are you actually, quote, "uninterested," unquote, in anyone defending freedom if they use religious terminology?

Do you not realize that 89.5% of your allies and potential allies are religious? Have you ever heard the term "Realpolitik"? Or, simpler: "Practicality" and "Common Sense"?

I reply to you because you make a good point about "selling" FRNs and mostly because you actually are sincere about your belief in property rights, unlike some here.

Anti Federalist
12-20-2018, 05:27 PM
Jesus Christ. They're just not gonna leave this man alone.

The Fagggot Mafia is pretty relentless.

Swordsmyth
12-20-2018, 05:34 PM
Are you literal? Are you actually, quote, "uninterested," unquote, in anyone defending freedom if they use religious terminology?

Do you not realize that 89.5% of your allies and potential allies are religious? Have you ever heard the term "Realpolitik"? Or, simpler: "Practicality" and "Common Sense"?

I reply to you because you make a good point about "selling" FRNs and mostly because you actually are sincere about your belief in property rights, unlike some here.
Religious freedom is less important than property rights to some libertarians.

Some are merely misguided but other worship filthy lucre, they also tend to place economics above securing liberty.

TheCount
12-20-2018, 06:06 PM
Religious freedom is less important than property rights to some libertarians.
What's the difference?

Swordsmyth
12-20-2018, 06:09 PM
What's the difference?
:rolleyes:

TheCount
12-20-2018, 06:13 PM
:rolleyes:
No, really, what's the difference?

Besides that you despise one of the two, that is.

DamianTV
12-20-2018, 06:15 PM
Religious freedom is less important than property rights to some libertarians.

Some are merely misguided but other worship filthy lucre, they also tend to place economics above securing liberty.

Truth.

I know one thing for sure. I have the Right Answers for myself ususally. I do NOT have the Right Answer for everyone. Thus, the responsible thing to do is to promote Freedom, where each person can decide for themselves what the Right Answer is. Freedom allows every person to have the ability to decide for themselves while being free from persecution for making decisions that differ from everyone elses.

Trouble is that Freedom has been Weaponized against the Free. The MSM constantly points out how different everyone is, and tries to use that to start fights amongst the people. Yes, we all have our differences. Some minor, some major. What the MSM has done is nothing short of using those differences to try to control the minds of the people by making the people afraid of each other, then, demanding that Govt come in and take total control of every persons lives so that many can continue living off of the Govts Tit, which means those who work keep less and less for themselves. They are using Freedom as a Rope by which the Free are tricked into hanging themselves with. Please go say something stupid, you have the Right to do so. Then, as soon as a person expresses an opinion that differs from the MSM Official Narrative, they take that stupid thing if said, and use it to ostracize that person, and explain "this is why Freedom needs to be banned" and make it look like Freedom is Dangerous, thus, the people fear Freedom and revolt against it. Liberty doesnt die with a whimper, yet, Thunderous Applause from the Oppressed.

Religion used to be very personal view on God / Gods, and a Societal Structure. Today, the NEW Religion is the State / MSM / Elite, the NEW Devil is Freedom.

Swordsmyth
12-20-2018, 06:17 PM
No, really, what's the difference?

Besides that you despise one of the two, that is.
:rolleyes:

TheCount
12-20-2018, 06:33 PM
:rolleyes:
Fine, I can answer myself, since you are evidently unable to distinguish between the two:

Religious rights are a lesser, weaker subset of property rights.

Swordsmyth
12-20-2018, 06:37 PM
Fine, I can answer myself, since you are evidently unable to distinguish between the two:

Religious rights are a lesser, weaker subset of property rights.
They may be a subset according to one way of thinking about them but the are neither lesser nor weaker.

TheCount
12-20-2018, 06:55 PM
They may be a subset according to one way of thinking about them but the are neither lesser nor weaker.

Property rights: Baker doesn't have to bake anything that he doesn't want to bake because he owns the bakery and himself

Religious rights: Baker has to bake everything except those things which are against his religious beliefs

Swordsmyth
12-20-2018, 06:57 PM
Property rights: Baker doesn't have to bake anything that he doesn't want to bake because he owns the bakery and himself

Religious rights: Baker has to bake everything except those things which are against his religious beliefs
There is more to Religious rights than that.

They are neither lesser nor weaker.

CaptUSA
12-20-2018, 07:00 PM
Are you literal? Are you actually, quote, "uninterested," unquote, in anyone defending freedom if they use religious terminology?

Do you not realize that 89.5% of your allies and potential allies are religious? Have you ever heard the term "Realpolitik"? Or, simpler: "Practicality" and "Common Sense"?

I reply to you because you make a good point about "selling" FRNs and mostly because you actually are sincere about your belief in property rights, unlike some here.

I was mostly responding to the last part of that post. But really, religion is only one reason for wanting property rights. There are infinite reasons. When people make the argument on the grounds of religious liberty, it sorta misses the point.

I mean, I don’t disparage them, but the reason for wanting to preserve property rights is far less important. And it’s divisive since you get people on the other side who don’t agree with your reasoning.

Compare these two phrases:
“I have the right to keep midgets off my lawn!”
“I have the right to keep anyone off my lawn!”

One evokes a reasoning some may find disagreeable. The other is universal.

TheCount
12-20-2018, 07:01 PM
There is more to Religious rights than that.

Obviously not, or you would have been able to articulate it in any one of your four posts on the subject.


They are neither lesser nor weaker.

They're both. In the baker's case, religious rights without property rights would mean that he doesn't have to make "a gay cake" but would have to make "a trans cake" or "AuH20's white supremacy cake" or "Swordsmyth's post office cake" or other cakes which he does not want to make. If, instead, he had property rights, he wouldn't have to make any of those cakes.

CaptUSA
12-20-2018, 07:02 PM
Some are merely misguided but other worship filthy lucre, they also tend to place economics above securing liberty.

That makes zero sense. Economics is the science of decision-making. Free will in decision-making is the essence of liberty.

Swordsmyth
12-20-2018, 07:04 PM
Obviously not, or you would have been able to articulate it in any one of your four posts on the subject.
I'm not going to teach you your ABCs either.




They're both. In the baker's case, religious rights without property rights would mean that he doesn't have to make "a gay cake" but would have to make "a trans cake" or "AuH20's white supremacy cake" or "Swordsmyth's post office cake" or other cakes which he does not want to make. If, instead, he had property rights, he wouldn't have to make any of those cakes.
In this one case where the two overlap the religious freedom argument might result in less protection but it is also more likely to be honored in our current legal/political environment.

Swordsmyth
12-20-2018, 07:08 PM
That makes zero sense. Economics is the science of decision-making. Free will in decision-making is the essence of liberty.
Taking welfare from an enemy is "good economics" but it is bad for the preservation of liberty whether that enemy is your own government or a foreign one.
Allowing millions of foreigners who believe in big government to immigrate into a republic where they will be allowed to vote for big government is "good economics" but bad for the preservation of liberty.

TheCount
12-20-2018, 07:13 PM
I'm not going to teach you your ABCs either.

Given your utter inability to read, I'd stick with attempting to teach non-literary things.




In this one case where the two overlap the religious freedom argument might result in less protection but it is also more likely to be honored in our current legal/political environment.

Thank you for agreeing that religious freedom is a lesser subset of property rights. I appreciate your candor.


Now, let's talk about the real reason that you don't like property rights. It, of course, has nothing to do with the political environment. Property rights would allow people to do things that you don't want them to do in addition to the things that you want them to be able to do. As you believe that government is a culture enforcement mechanism, government must necessarily have the ability to prevent people from doing things with their property that are against the favored culture.

CaptUSA
12-20-2018, 07:13 PM
Taking welfare from an enemy is "good economics" but it is bad for the preservation of liberty whether that enemy is your own government or a foreign one.
Allowing millions of foreigners who believe in big government to immigrate into a republic where they will be allowed to vote for big government is "good economics" but bad for the preservation of liberty.

Listen, you already failed the “my path to tyranny is better than your path to tyranny” test in another thread.

Money is just a medium of exchange. It is NOT economics.


Economics is the weighing of individual value propositions. Do I want this or that? Do I want to do business with this guy or not. The reason behind each decision is entirely personal. To defend that decision-making right on the basis of the reason for your decision is to suggest that your reason must be valid. It does not. It just needs to be yours.

Swordsmyth
12-20-2018, 07:16 PM
Given your utter inability to read, I'd stick with attempting to teach non-literary things.
:rolleyes:






Thank you for agreeing that religious freedom is a lesser subset of property rights. I appreciate your candor.
That isn't what I said, somebody should teach you to read.




Now, let's talk about the real reason that you don't like property rights. It, of course, has nothing to do with the political environment. Property rights would allow people to do things that you don't want them to do in addition to the things that you want them to be able to do. As you believe that government is a culture enforcement mechanism, government must necessarily have the ability to prevent people from doing things with their property that are against the favored culture.
I have never said that, you must be projecting again.

CaptUSA
12-20-2018, 08:04 PM
...



Economics is the weighing of individual value propositions. Do I want this or that? Do I want to do business with this guy or not. The reason behind each decision is entirely personal. To defend that decision-making right on the basis of the reason for your decision is to suggest that your reason must be valid. It does not. It just needs to be yours.

Is it that hard to understand?

TheCount
12-20-2018, 08:51 PM
Is it that hard to understand?

I got this:

:rolleyes:

H_H
12-21-2018, 06:35 AM
I was mostly responding to the last part of that post.
...
I mean, I don’t disparage them,... Ahh, OK, I got ya. Right on.

In that case I'm with you, man. I agree.


Compare these two phrases:
“I have the right to keep midgets off my lawn!”
“I have the right to keep anyone off my lawn!”

One evokes a reasoning some may find disagreeable. The other is universal. Well, you should use whatever words and whatever communication strategy you think best, and which best fits your own unique personal style and inclinations. I am certainly not one to give any advice on communication, as I am a terrible communicator! Just look at a random sampling of my posts here on RPF and ask yourself after each one, "Did even one person on this site understand that post at all?" and probably 60% of the time your answer to that will be, "No.

And neither do I. DoubleU-Tee-Heck is he talking about?"

But I have fun anyway, so even here I'll try to make one (bizarre, incomprehensible) point:

Statement A would make sense to use, and would be highly effective, if there were a large midget-hating contingent in the populace you were trying to reach.

What if the contingent were very large?

What if it were upwards of 80% of the populace?

Are ya feeling me? Here, let me be more transparent:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/4c/94/fa/4c94fa1d3e70081295b0ca34fffff5b4.png

H_H
12-21-2018, 06:55 AM
Quick Friday Poll:

Does anyone here believe that Three "monarchy revolution NOW!" Pee Oh, or Willy "Oompa Looma Lives Count.... NOT!" Wonka actually sincerely believe in the sacred holiness of Absolute Property Rights and would defend their inviolability with their lives, fortunes, and sacred honors?

Raise your hand if you do.

Anybody?

Anybody?

...

Come on, at least one person?

Just chime right in if you do!

CaptUSA
12-21-2018, 07:08 AM
Are ya feeling me? Here, let me be more transparent:



Yeah, I get it, but this is the point I made that SS Boromir is dodging:

Economics is the weighing of individual value propositions. Do I want this or that? Do I want to do business with this guy or not. The reason behind each decision is entirely personal. To defend that decision-making right on the basis of the reason for your decision is to suggest that your reason must be valid. It does not. It just needs to be yours.

So you can use the "Freedom of Religion" argument as validation for your reasoning, but then it undermines the main point that it doesn't matter what reason you may have. It's like defending freedom of speech on the basis that what you have to say is important. That may be true, but it's besides the issue.

The religious freedom issue may resonate with a portion of the population - and I don't disparage anyone making that point if it wins friends - but it's not really the issue in these types of matters.

H_H
12-21-2018, 07:10 AM
Oh, and addendum to the Poll:

Juan "Taco Tuesday" Carlos Zippy-Valdez has not chimed in to this thread yet, but if he did he too would say something in support of total Property Rights and the total moral equivalence of bakers booting butt-masturbators from their bakeries and justice warriors whacking white-identifiers off their world-wide web.

So add him, too. If anybody thinks he is a True Blue Believer in Anarcho-capitalist-style Property Rights for All.... just chime right in below!

Thanks!

Schifference
12-21-2018, 07:13 AM
The video on the first page where he states that they decided their business plan when opening that they would..........

What would be the sentiment if he had said, "we decided when we opened that we would only bake cakes for english speaking customers that are white?"

Schifference
12-21-2018, 07:17 AM
How come people that rent apartments or houses are not able to not rent to people of color?

How come people that own companies cannot not hire a person because they are black, gay, woman, muslim, catholic..........

What is the difference?

If this guy's business was growing and he needed an assistant and placed an ad could he say, must not be gay, must not be jewish, must be xyz?

CaptUSA
12-21-2018, 07:23 AM
How come people that rent apartments or houses are not able to not rent to people of color?

How come people that own companies cannot not hire a person because they are black, gay, woman, muslim, catholic..........

What is the difference?

If this guy's business was growing and he needed an assistant and placed an ad could he say, must not be gay, must not be jewish, must be xyz?

If only...

There are societal/market solutions for those types of people. No need for governance. Period. If you want to be exclusionary, you will pay a price. But that's entirely your decision to make. To suggest otherwise is to endorse a form of slavery in which you are not free to act upon your own mind, even if you are not harming anyone else.

Schifference
12-21-2018, 07:34 AM
If only...

There are societal/market solutions for those types of people. No need for governance. Period. If you want to be exclusionary, you will pay a price. But that's entirely your decision to make. To suggest otherwise is to endorse a form of slavery in which you are not free to act upon your own mind, even if you are not harming anyone else.

Post a fictitious ad on Craiglist advertising a job or apartment and state only white people need apply and see what happens to you.

H_H
12-21-2018, 07:36 AM
Yeah, I get it, but this is the point I made that SS Boromir is dodging:


So you can use the "Freedom of Religion" argument as validation for your reasoning, but then it undermines the main point that it doesn't matter what reason you may have.
I don't know, I thought he addressed it, albeit briefly, with:

"In this one case where the two overlap the religious freedom argument might result in less protection but it is also more likely to be honored in our current legal/political environment."

I mean, that's a pretty fair point. Pretty accurate. And the kind of thing that's pretty important to think about if one cares about victory -- Actual, Real Life Victory! -- as opposed to repeatedly announcing that you've solved the sudoku problem of politics and the correct solution is an-cap.

I mean, an-cap isthe solution. I believe that. I've believed that for the majority of my life now, and my entire adult life. But, like, OK, can we move on from gloating about how awesome we are for having figured that out..... ever? Can we ever, ever move on to other interesting things? ANYTHING interesting? Because let me tell you, the horse is starting to rot and it's super rank!

Yes, we should repeal the minimum wage, we should repeal the disabilities act, we should repeal all business regulation, all 6.66 kabillion pages of it, we should rename America to The Kingdom of Anything Goes and we should let anything go for business, just let businessmen do absolutely whatever the heck they want to, anything goes. That would be great.

But SS is, like it or not (and I don't! I don't) absolutely right that Anything Goes Land-ification is not exactly on the table right now. So to take absolutely every issue that pops up and wrap it up in the whole kaboodle ancap program, well... probably not a winning strategy. I mean, you take a winning issue, an issue that has overwhelmingly strong support with either a large part or even the majority of the population, and rather than TAKING THE VICTORY you wrap it up in 1,000 yards of ancap cellophane wrap, telling the normies, "Well, Ackchyually, you need to realize this is just one tiny manifestation of my elaborate all-encompassing bizarre and extremist political theory that you need to accept all of for me to keep talking to you. Otherwise, you're not my friend anymore."

Just TAKE THE VICTORY, man.

Let the man bake his freaking cakes.

JUST TAKE THE VICTORY.

Schifference
12-21-2018, 07:39 AM
We bake specialty cakes for only rich and famous white straight christian people.

CaptUSA
12-21-2018, 07:45 AM
JUST TAKE THE VICTORY.

But is it a victory?? If the government tells you that you can make your own choices as long as you have a religious exemption??? That seems like a rather hollow victory, at best.

Schifference
12-21-2018, 07:47 AM
But is it a victory?? If the government tells you that you can make your own choices as long as you have a religious exemption??? That seems like a rather hollow victory, at best.

I agree! Who determines if your religious exemption is valid? Can you have your own religion? Can you believe what you want? Do you have to have your religion fit into the confines of some established religion?

H_H
12-21-2018, 07:49 AM
It's like defending freedom of speech on the basis that what you have to say is important. That may be true, but it's besides the issue.

And by the way, that is not beside the issue.

If no one had anything important to say, it would be absolutely true that freedom of speech would not be important. Non-important things are not important. It's, like, a tautology and junk.

Freedom of speech is important because and specifically because it's how we are going to save our civilization. There is some very important speech that needs to be said, some very important ideas that need to be communicated. Instead, freedom of speech is being used exclusively for the right of the Semite people to create and disseminate nationwide... what was that #1 movie in the Idiocracy future again? Yeah. That.

H_H
12-21-2018, 02:09 PM
But is it a victory?? If the government tells you that you can make your own choices as long as you have a religious exemption??? That seems like a rather hollow victory, at best.

Yes, that is a huge victory, man. It's not hollow. It's just a victory. Full stop.

Also, separate but related point:

Look, if you are going to fight a war, or even just a battle, it is nice to know the rough configuration of the terrain you will be fighting on. But it is absolutely dumbfoundingly essential to at least know who is on your side and who is on the other side. It just.... I mean... COME ON!

Libertarianism is a right-wing ideology. I know you will not want to accept that, many here do not, but it's true. Your non-acceptance doesn't really change that. At all. Though it likely makes you feel better. Ahh, so aloof from it all. All libertarianism is in its full an-cap consummation is a systematized and rigorized version of "dur, Freedom, Constitution, U.S.A! U.S.A!" arch-conservatism.

Our allies and our base are:

1. Everybody that loves the Constitution and Bill of Rights, pining for a restoration
2. More broadly, everybody that pines for how America used to be, since in the past America was a far more libertarian place with a far smaller government
3. Small business men, simply because they have to deal with the madness of the gov & bear the brunt head on. And to be the victim of the gov is to hate it.
4. All other people who are oppressed victims under the Current Year System. Ripe, ripe, ripe. Their hatred is real. They are prime for the picking. Includes:
5. White people. The whole system openly discriminates against them by law (affirmative action) and by fact.
6. Men. "I divorced my wife b/c she was a whore and of course I easily kept custody of my kids." Said no man ever. Now always in history they would have. Not in Current Year.
7. Dun-da-da-dun!: Religious People! These are, like, the most outy of the out groups; the group that it's most OK to mock, deride, ridicule, dox, destroy, and oppress. You think they might be a little bit frustrated with their place in the power pecking order of our society? You think they might be a little bit angry and ready for a change? Like, an anti-government change?

Ya think?



https://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-03-16-1458157246-1903187-TRUMPMARCH5_original1.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/n3GP3b2/angytrumpkid.jpg[

http://media.salon.com/2016/08/trump_supporters_confederate_flag-620x412.jpg

CaptUSA
12-21-2018, 02:55 PM
Yes, that is a huge victory, man. It's not hollow. It's just a victory. Full stop.

Also, separate but related point:

Look, if you are going to fight a war, or even just a battle, it is nice to know the rough configuration of the terrain you will be fighting on. But it is absolutely dumbfoundingly essential to at least know who is on your side and who is on the other side. It just.... I mean... COME ON!

Libertarianism is a right-wing ideology. I know you will not want to accept that, many here do not, but it's true. Your non-acceptance doesn't really change that. At all. Though it likely makes you feel better. Ahh, so aloof from it all. All libertarianism is in its full an-cap consummation is a systematized and rigorized version of "dur, Freedom, Constitution, U.S.A! U.S.A!" arch-conservatism.

Our allies and our base are:

1. Everybody that loves the Constitution and Bill of Rights, pining for a restoration
2. More broadly, everybody that pines for how America used to be, since in the past America was a far more libertarian place with a far smaller government
3. Small business men, simply because they have to deal with the madness of the gov & bear the brunt head on. And to be the victim of the gov is to hate it.
4. All other people who are oppressed victims under the Current Year System. Ripe, ripe, ripe. Their hatred is real. They are prime for the picking. Includes:
5. White people. The whole system openly discriminates against them by law (affirmative action) and by fact.
6. Men. "I divorced my wife b/c she was a whore and of course I easily kept custody of my kids." Said no man ever. Now always in history they would have. Not in Current Year.
7. Dun-da-da-dun!: Religious People! These are, like, the most outy of the out groups; the group that it's most OK to mock, deride, ridicule, dox, destroy, and oppress. You think they might be a little bit frustrated with their place in the power pecking order of our society? You think they might be a little bit angry and ready for a change? Like, an anti-government change?

Ya think?



https://images.huffingtonpost.com/2016-03-16-1458157246-1903187-TRUMPMARCH5_original1.jpg

https://i.ibb.co/n3GP3b2/angytrumpkid.jpg[

http://media.salon.com/2016/08/trump_supporters_confederate_flag-620x412.jpg




Please. If some snowflake decides they want to stop serving rednecks (or cops), your supposed “allies” would turn on you in a heartbeat. And they have. Again, your reason for your choice is irrelevant.

H_H
12-21-2018, 03:23 PM
Please. If some snowflake decides they want to stop serving rednecks (or cops), your supposed “allies” would turn on you in a heartbeat. And they have. Again, your reason for your choice is irrelevant.
Turn against.... me?

You have completely misunderstood. You didn't make the jump with me to the new topic. I'm not posting about the Philosophical Beauty of Freedom of Association. I never was, incidentally. And so, you can naturally assume that I was not making the claim that "angry Evangelicals and Amish and whites all support ancap-style Freedom of Association." Because no one does. Except ancaps. And actually even most ancaps don't -- probably at least 60% ancaps are hardcore anti-racists (and anti-sexist, anti-everything-eeeeeeevil) and thus they want to shut down lunch counters without blacks at them too -- really really bad they want to! -- and so they just have to jump through some intellectual hoops to do so ("Oh don't worry, we'll boycott any evil people like that and they'll go out of business." "The free market will solve that problem."). So everybody wants to shut down freedom of association and nobody supports it, including you. Fine. Fact. Whatevs. I never disagreed with that.

So back to what I was saying: you can assume I wasn't making that claim, and if you look back and read the post, you'll lo and behold: I didn't. What did I claim? That people in the Outer Party, people on the unacceptable fringes of society, people being victimized by their government and their society, are the ones more naturally inclined to be dissatisfied with Current Year system.

Like, that's where you look to get fodder for your revolution, bro. That's your target market. Look into their eyes and tell me what they want. Understand your target market, think inside their heads, and you can lead them anywhere.

CaptUSA
12-21-2018, 03:34 PM
Turn against.... me?

You have completely misunderstood. You didn't make the jump with me to the new topic. I'm not posting about the Philosophical Beauty of Freedom of Association. I never was, incidentally. And so, you can naturally assume that I was not making the claim that "angry Evangelicals and Amish and whites all support ancap-style Freedom of Association." Because no one does. Except ancaps. And actually even most ancaps don't -- probably at least 60% ancaps are hardcore anti-racists (and anti-sexist, anti-everything-eeeeeeevil) and thus they want to shut down lunch counters without blacks at them too -- really really bad they want to! -- and so they just have to jump through some intellectual hoops to do so ("Oh don't worry, we'll boycott any evil people like that and they'll go out of business." "The free market will solve that problem."). So everybody wants to shut down freedom of association and nobody supports it, including you. Fine. Fact. Whatevs. I never disagreed with that.

So back to what I was saying: you can assume I wasn't making that claim, and if you look back and read the post, you'll lo and behold: I didn't. What did I claim? That people in the Outer Party, people on the unacceptable fringes of society, people being victimized by their government and their society, are the ones more naturally inclined to be dissatisfied with Current Year system.

Like, that's where you look to get fodder for your revolution, bro. That's your target market. Look into their eyes and tell me what they want. Understand your target market, think inside their heads, and you can lead them anywhere.

Oh I get it... you’re off your meds. You should have led with that.

Look, I don’t know about any of those labels and I’m not a fan of political strategery. I’m just an individual that understands liberty and tries to spread the message to others.

Swordsmyth
12-21-2018, 04:31 PM
Oh I get it... you’re off your meds. You should have led with that.

Look, I don’t know about any of those labels and I’m not a fan of political strategery. I’m just an individual that understands liberty and tries to spread the message to others.
You still don't understand him so I will explain in clearer language.

Those people may not want perfect liberty but they want more liberty than we have, that makes them our allies until we reach a point where they are satisfied and we are not.

Swordsmyth
12-21-2018, 04:34 PM
But is it a victory?? If the government tells you that you can make your own choices as long as you have a religious exemption??? That seems like a rather hollow victory, at best.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCqHfqhoMqo

I get it, you are upset that Ryan didn't make the train.

But as the old Brit says: If only one gets out it's a victory.

Swordsmyth
12-21-2018, 04:37 PM
Yeah, I get it, but this is the point I made that SS Boromir is dodging:


So you can use the "Freedom of Religion" argument as validation for your reasoning, but then it undermines the main point that it doesn't matter what reason you may have. It's like defending freedom of speech on the basis that what you have to say is important. That may be true, but it's besides the issue.

The religious freedom issue may resonate with a portion of the population - and I don't disparage anyone making that point if it wins friends - but it's not really the issue in these types of matters.
It doesn't undermine anything to use an equally valid argument that is more likely to succeed in your current environment.

H_H
12-23-2018, 07:35 AM
I got this:

:rolleyes:*autistic screeching*

Content-less Posting Goose Furious at Gander for Posting Insufficient Content in Post

tonight at 11

H_H
12-23-2018, 07:40 AM
Oh I get it... you’re off your meds.


*autistic screeching!!*

8^O

H_H
12-24-2018, 05:31 PM
Oh I get it... you’re off your meds. You should have led with that.

Look, I don’t know about any of [that]....
Just to be clear, the post where I so utterly lost and confused you was the one where I said:

The men who are the most alienated, marginalized, hated, spit-upon, and victimized ones in a given society are the most likely to be dissatisfied with the way said society is being run and to support a program to change the way said society is ruled.

BTW: Do you, like, have such a program, Cap'n?

Maybe so, eh? Maybe you want to change the way our society is ruled? JUST A TAD?

I kinda thought so.

So how comes that that post was the one that lost you? The point was actually quite a bit simpler than some of the other posts you claimed to follow and comprehend just fine. Hmm.

Yeah, I think your ratiocinating mental CPU understood my point just fine. All too well. Your irrational emotive HR rep, however, exercised her veto power and forcibly prevented the CPU from running the program (and inevitably accepting my point as simple and true).

Just a theory! I could be wrong. Maybe post #65 was really esoteric and dense, as opposed to stupidly simple and obvious. What do I know? Hard to assess one's own writing.

r3volution 3.0
12-24-2018, 08:06 PM
I haven't ever supported it; but its obvious that a valid legal argument can be made. And one could support it and not be a hypocrite, as it is a completely different issue than the bake the cake bullshit.

The legal issue is different, but the underlying motivation of the "activists" is the same.

...Gays want the baker to bake their cake, and they're pissed that he won't, so they sue.

...Nationalists want Facebook to host their ramblings, and they're pissed that they won't, so they sue.

Neither really cares about the principles underlying either issue; that's rationalization.


In the baker's case, religious rights without property rights would mean that he doesn't have to make "a gay cake" but would have to make "a trans cake" or "AuH20's white supremacy cake" or "Swordsmyth's post office cake" or other cakes which he does not want to make. If, instead, he had property rights, he wouldn't have to make any of those cakes.


Now, let's talk about the real reason that you don't like property rights. It, of course, has nothing to do with the political environment. Property rights would allow people to do things that you don't want them to do in addition to the things that you want them to be able to do. As you believe that government is a culture enforcement mechanism, government must necessarily have the ability to prevent people from doing things with their property that are against the favored culture.

Well put

Swordsmyth
01-09-2019, 10:03 PM
The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop can proceed with his lawsuit against the state of Colorado after a judge refused to dismiss the case.
Jack Phillips has accused the Colorado Civil Rights Commission of anti-religious bias because it punished him for refusing to bake a cake celebrating gender transition. Phillips, represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, filed suit when the state chose to prosecute him even after he won his case at the U.S. Supreme Court in June.
Judge Wiley Y. Daniel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado ruled the suit (https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-baker-back-in-court-over-2nd-lgbt-bias-allegation) against the state can move forward.

More at: https://www.foxnews.com/us/court-allows-christian-baker-to-sue-colorado-for-anti-religious-hostility

Swordsmyth
03-06-2019, 08:38 PM
Colorado has finally thrown in the towel on its years-long campaign against Christian cake baker Jack Phillips. The state’s attorney general announced March 4 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s was dismissing it most recent charges against Phillips “in the wake of newly discovered evidence of the state’s ongoing hostility toward religious freedom,” reported Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the legal advocacy group that has been defending Phillips throughout his more than six-year battle with the state over his First Amendment-guaranteed religious freedoms.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/31660-colo-drops-latest-attack-against-christian-baker

Zippyjuan
03-06-2019, 08:47 PM
Colorado has finally thrown in the towel on its years-long campaign against Christian cake baker Jack Phillips. The state’s attorney general announced March 4 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s was dismissing it most recent charges against Phillips “in the wake of newly discovered evidence of the state’s ongoing hostility toward religious freedom,” reported Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the legal advocacy group that has been defending Phillips throughout his more than six-year battle with the state over his First Amendment-guaranteed religious freedoms.

More at: https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/faith-and-morals/item/31660-colo-drops-latest-attack-against-christian-baker

That was actually over a second case.


The attorney, Autumn Scardina, told the commission that Phillips refused last year to make a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside for a celebration of her transition from male to female.


She asked for the cake on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would consider Phillips' appeal of a previous commission ruling against him. In that 2012 case, he refused to make a wedding cake for same-sex couple Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins.

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that the commission showed anti-religious bias when it sanctioned Phillips. The justices did not rule on the larger issue of whether businesses can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gays or lesbians.

Probably just decided it was costing too many taxpayer dollars to pursue it. The plaintiff is allowed to continue (if they wish to) with their own private attorney.

Swordsmyth
03-06-2019, 08:48 PM
That was actually over a second case.
And?