Jack Phillips Strikes Back at Colorado's Anti-Christian Attacks

[Swordsmyth]

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.


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/...e-strikes-back

[Suzanimal]

Jesus Christ. They're just not gonna leave this man alone.

[DamianTV]

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]

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]

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]

[specsaregood]

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]

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.

http://masterpiececakes.com/

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]

Just pointing out that the latest case involves a transgender attorney.

[H_H]

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/art...g-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!



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?

[specsaregood]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

*autistic screeching*

Welcome back. How was the rally?

[Grandmastersexsay]

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]

*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]

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]

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 $#@! yourself...

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

[Grandmastersexsay]

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]

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 $#@! 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]

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 $#@!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.

[Grandmastersexsay]

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 $#@! you to the big tech companies? Cutting off your nose to spite your face comes to mind.

[specsaregood]

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 $#@! 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 bull$#@!.

[aGameOfThrones]

[H_H]

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]

^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]

Jesus Christ. They're just not gonna leave this man alone.

The Fagggot Mafia is pretty relentless.

[Swordsmyth]

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.