Current Events > Trump Sides with CHRISTIAN BAKER who REFUSED Service to a Gay Couple!!

(+) Yeah! (+)

Anti-Gay Trump is showing his colours now that he's sided with Christian Baker, Jack Phillips who refused to bake a cake for 2 gay men in Colorado because of his religious beliefs!!

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver was asked to bake a wedding cake for 2 men but refused to as he says God doesn't believe in Gay People and it is a violation of his constitutional rights according to the Dept of Justice.

He is challenging Colorado law that says he was wrong to turn away Charlie Craig and David Mullins in 2012 where it was made illegal to discriminate the LGBT

The Justice Department wrote in an amicus brief filed ahead of the argument before the Supreme Court hears the case.

It said "Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment Rights. In the view of the United States, a First Amendment intrusion occurs where public accomodations law compels someone to create expression for a particular person or entity and to participate, literally or figuratively in a ceremony or other expressive event"

The legal fight broke out in 2012 when Jack told Charlie and David that his Christian beliefs and store policy to deny service to customers wanting to purchase wedding cakes was his right...The couple then went to FB to tell their story and then complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who sided with the couple.

Jack said artistans can't be compelled to produce works celebrating an event that violates artists religions and the DOJ sided with him.

Should Jack win the case, only businesses that engage in creative acts similar to making a cake would be able to obtain similar exemptions from anti-discrimination laws.

Louise Melling said "What the Trump Administration is advocating for is nothing short of a constitutional right to discriminate"

The Trump Administration is making small steps to limit the rights of the LGBT, starting with reversing policies by Obama.

Do you think people should have a right to deny service to LGBT people?

Trump - Anti-Gay

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/08/18/440AA2EE00000578-4866232-Trump_s_administration_has_sided_Christian_baker_Jack_Phillips_-a-52_1504891820394.jpg

Jack - Anti-Gay Baker

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/08/18/440B9C2200000578-4866232-The_Department_of_Justice_said_Thursday_that_forcing_Phillips_to-m-51_1504891813539.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/08/18/440B9C0700000578-4866232-image-a-27_1504890410393.jpg

Charlie and David - Gay Couple

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/08/18/440BA6D000000578-4866232-Phillips_is_challenging_a_Colorado_law_that_says_he_was_wrong_to-m-48_1504891715380.jpg

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/08/18/440BA6FA00000578-4866232-image-a-28_1504890423367.jpg

Jack's ugly cake shop -

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/09/08/18/440B9C2B00000578-4866232-image-a-29_1504890430281.jpg
---

the baker could have been his son
---

Good.
---

Dont know why you would turn away money religious people are crazy
---

The God of my religion doesn't believe in cake shops. They literally don't exist.
---

CADE FOSTER posted...

Dont know why you would turn away money religious people are crazy

God bless Atheists.

OEIO999 posted...

CADE FOSTER posted...

Dont know why you would turn away money religious people are crazy

God bless Atheists.

Bible doesn't value money

So much for his obvious political move at appointing a gay ambassador to say "See I'm ok with gays"

Axiom posted...

So much for his obvious political move at appointing a gay ambassador to say "See I'm ok with gays"

You can be okay with gays and still be against forcing Christians to go against their beliefs.
---

Axiom posted...

So much for his obvious political move at appointing a gay ambassador to say "See I'm ok with gays"

But he waved a rainbow flag once!
---

Imagine wanting men with guns to force a baker to make a cake he doesn't want to make.

Imagine being that much of a bootlicker.
---

Trump does not know US laws and the Constitution, what else is new?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Imagine wanting men with guns to force a baker to make a cake he doesn't want to make.

Imagine being that much of a bootlicker.

This is stupid even for you.
---

Nothing in the bible forbids selling things to gay couples. They're just excusing their hate.
---

KrustyTheClown posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Imagine wanting men with guns to force a baker to make a cake he doesn't want to make.

Imagine being that much of a bootlicker.

This is stupid even for you.

No really, defend this. Defend the idea of forcing a person to bake a cake at gunpoint.
---

DreadedWave posted...

Nothing in the bible forbids selling things to gay couples. They're just excusing their hate.

this
What does go against christian faith is refusing to serve gay couples on just based on that.
Mal_Fet posted...

KrustyTheClown posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Imagine wanting men with guns to force a baker to make a cake he doesn't want to make.

Imagine being that much of a bootlicker.

This is stupid even for you.

No really, defend this. Defend the idea of forcing a person to bake a cake at gunpoint.

Troll or not bright, pick one
---

Imagine actually thinking discrimination over cakes is ok.

Then again, Mal did defend Nazis.
---

Blue_Inigo posted...

Imagine actually thinking discrimination over cakes is ok.

Then again, Mal did defend Nazis.

Dishonest wording.

"ok" and "Shouldn't be illegal" aren't the same statement.

I dont think grabbing your poo and writing "I want to kill all the women in Toronto" across your bedroom wall with it is "okay"

But I don't want my tax dollars going to police coming to arrest you for doing it.

If assholes Inc don't want to serve you, go down the street where not assholes INC are more than happy to take your money for the identical service.

Costly legal drama and police involvement does nothing but give lawyers huge stiffies and make idiots on social media say idiotic things.
---

Blue_Inigo posted...

Imagine actually thinking discrimination over cakes is ok.

It's not ok to flame people, but police should not haul you off to jail for flaming people.

See the difference?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Blue_Inigo posted...

Imagine actually thinking discrimination over cakes is ok.

It's not ok to flame people, but police should not haul you off to jail for flaming people.

See the difference?

Um it is actual law people can't do this, and yet people start this S*** anyway
---

Squidkids posted...

Um it is actual law people can't do this

Saying "it's the law" is not a defense.

Defend the premise of forcing a baker to make a cake at gunpoint using a fact-based argument.
---

Depends. If the business has any loans or government money in it, you can't.

If the business is completely private then fine be an asshole. But that's bad for business so your loss
---

LittleRoyal posted...

Depends. If the business has any loans or government money in it, you can't.

If the business is completely private then fine be an asshole. But that's bad for business so your loss

^ Exactly.

Luckily, there's an inherent monetary disadvantage to limiting your customers by surface traits. Allow these discriminatory businesses to fail naturally rather than send in jackboots to coerce them to bake cakes for people.
---

trump is actually sensible on this issue
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Squidkids posted...

Um it is actual law people can't do this

Saying "it's the law" is not a defense.

Defend the premise of forcing a baker to make a cake at gunpoint using a fact-based argument.

Squidkids posted...

DreadedWave posted...

Nothing in the bible forbids selling things to gay couples. They're just excusing their hate.

this
What does go against christian faith is refusing to serve gay couples on just based on that.
Mal_Fet posted...

KrustyTheClown posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Imagine wanting men with guns to force a baker to make a cake he doesn't want to make.

Imagine being that much of a bootlicker.

This is stupid even for you.

No really, defend this. Defend the idea of forcing a person to bake a cake at gunpoint.

Troll or not bright, pick one

---

Mal_Fet posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

Depends. If the business has any loans or government money in it, you can't.

If the business is completely private then fine be an asshole. But that's bad for business so your loss

^ Exactly.

and that is wrong, lamo

learn laws/ morals and come back, or stop being a troll?
---

I love how he stands up for what he believes in. The Don sure is an admirable guy

Squidkids posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

Depends. If the business has any loans or government money in it, you can't.

If the business is completely private then fine be an asshole. But that's bad for business so your loss

^ Exactly.

and that is wrong, lamo

learn laws/ morals and come back, or stop being a troll?

Should everything that's immoral be illegal?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Squidkids posted...

Um it is actual law people can't do this

Saying "it's the law" is not a defense.

Defend the premise of forcing a baker to make a cake at gunpoint using a fact-based argument.

You can make every law sound inherently bad if you go "Well if you ignore the law and all warnings for long enough, someone may potentially order you at gunpoint to do it". That is not the reality 99% of the time and is just a lame exaggeration.
---

Just get a cake from another shop?
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Squidkids posted...

Um it is actual law people can't do this

Saying "it's the law" is not a defense.

Defend the premise of forcing a baker to make a cake at gunpoint using a fact-based argument.

You can make every law sound inherently bad if you go "Well if you ignore the law and all warnings for long enough, someone may potentially order you at gunpoint to do it". That is not the reality and is just a lame exaggeration.

It's not an exaggeration. What would happen if the baker refused to make the cake and refused to pay the punitive fine for it?
---

If the business is open to the public, they shouldn't be able to discriminate. They shouldn't be forced to make the cake though, just be shut down.
---

i love xtians think homosexuals are the biggest issue we face.

how fucking stupid do you have to be...
---

1NfamousACE_2 posted...

Just get a cake from another shop?

but but but the fake outrage and payout

and sjws cant destory some lives
---

_Near_ posted...

If the business is open to the public, they shouldn't be able to discriminate. They shouldn't be forced to make the cake though, just be shut down.

That's incredibly stupid logic

The amount of outrage that has been expended over wedding cakes in the U.S. -- by both sides -- is almost unbelievable.
---

DonaldClinton posted...

_Near_ posted...

If the business is open to the public, they shouldn't be able to discriminate. They shouldn't be forced to make the cake though, just be shut down.

That's incredibly stupid logic

im going to try and get the local women only gym shut down
---

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Squidkids posted...

Um it is actual law people can't do this

Saying "it's the law" is not a defense.

Defend the premise of forcing a baker to make a cake at gunpoint using a fact-based argument.

You can make every law sound inherently bad if you go "Well if you ignore the law and all warnings for long enough, someone may potentially order you at gunpoint to do it". That is not the reality and is just a lame exaggeration.

It's not an exaggeration. What would happen if the baker refused to make the cake and refused to pay the punitive fine for it?

So are you an anarchist? A sovereign citizen? That could be the potential eventual reality of anyone who ignores the law long and hard enough. That is not even close to the norm in nonviolent crime. All laws must be bad since big bad government will just go fascist if you blow them off forever, no?
---

ModLogic posted...

DonaldClinton posted...

_Near_ posted...

If the business is open to the public, they shouldn't be able to discriminate. They shouldn't be forced to make the cake though, just be shut down.

That's incredibly stupid logic

im going to try and get the local women only gym shut down

Go ahead and try. You have that right as a consumer.
---

hockeybub89 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Squidkids posted...

Um it is actual law people can't do this

Saying "it's the law" is not a defense.

Defend the premise of forcing a baker to make a cake at gunpoint using a fact-based argument.

You can make every law sound inherently bad if you go "Well if you ignore the law and all warnings for long enough, someone may potentially order you at gunpoint to do it". That is not the reality and is just a lame exaggeration.

It's not an exaggeration. What would happen if the baker refused to make the cake and refused to pay the punitive fine for it?

So are you an anarchist? A sovereign citizen? That could be the potential eventual reality of anyone who ignores the law long and hard enough. That is not even close to the norm in nonviolent crime. All laws must be bad since big bad government will just go fascist if you blow them off forever, no?

Some laws are justified. There are plenty of crimes that should require a threat of violence from the police, like homicide, theft, civil driving, etc. Some are not.

Niw, explain how forcing a baker to make a cake at gunpoint is a justified law.
---

ModLogic posted...

DonaldClinton posted...

_Near_ posted...

If the business is open to the public, they shouldn't be able to discriminate. They shouldn't be forced to make the cake though, just be shut down.

That's incredibly stupid logic

im going to try and get the local women only gym shut down

If it's discriminatory, then the business owner has to put forth a compelling reason to why they should be able to discriminate. I think women only gyms would be able to do that. I don't think religious bakeries could.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Squidkids posted...

Um it is actual law people can't do this

Saying "it's the law" is not a defense.

Defend the premise of forcing a baker to make a cake at gunpoint using a fact-based argument.

You can make every law sound inherently bad if you go "Well if you ignore the law and all warnings for long enough, someone may potentially order you at gunpoint to do it". That is not the reality and is just a lame exaggeration.

It's not an exaggeration. What would happen if the baker refused to make the cake and refused to pay the punitive fine for it?

So are you an anarchist? A sovereign citizen? That could be the potential eventual reality of anyone who ignores the law long and hard enough. That is not even close to the norm in nonviolent crime. All laws must be bad since big bad government will just go fascist if you blow them off forever, no?

Some laws are justified. There are plenty of crimes that should require a threat of violence from the police, like homicide, theft, civil driving, etc. Some are not.

Niw, explain how forcing a baker to make a cake at gunpoint is a justified law.

I don't base my support of laws on how people who break them will be treated if they are historically giant jackasses about it.

Are you against any and all non-dangerous criminal and civil laws? I mean, someone might eventually get a gun pointed at them if they ignore all kinds of fines and court orders. Or is discrimination the only law you think the government could theoretically enforce with violence?
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Squidkids posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

LittleRoyal posted...

Depends. If the business has any loans or government money in it, you can't.

If the business is completely private then fine be an asshole. But that's bad for business so your loss

^ Exactly.

and that is wrong, lamo

learn laws/ morals and come back, or stop being a troll?

Should everything that's immoral be illegal?

No because masturbating is awesome
---

Shocker
---

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't base my support of laws on how people who break them will be treated if they are historically giant jackasses about it.

Punishment fitting the crime is a Constitutional requirement, bro.

hockeybub89 posted...

Are you against any and all non-dangerous criminal and civil laws?

No? I think any laws that protect your basic human rights are justified.

Unfortunately, being able to have someone bake you a cake is not a human right.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't base my support of laws on how people who break them will be treated if they are historically giant jackasses about it.

Punishment fitting the crime is a Constitutional requirement, bro.

citation needed
---

_Near_ posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't base my support of laws on how people who break them will be treated if they are historically giant jackasses about it.

Punishment fitting the crime is a Constitutional requirement, bro.

citation needed

8th Amendment.
---

Texas_Horns posted...

Bible doesn't value money

Not nearly as much as it values having to marry your rapist.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

_Near_ posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

hockeybub89 posted...

I don't base my support of laws on how people who break them will be treated if they are historically giant jackasses about it.

Punishment fitting the crime is a Constitutional requirement, bro.

citation needed

8th Amendment.

8th amendment doesn't say that the punishment should fit the crime, it merely says that the punishment can't be cruel and unusual. It was originally meant to avoid excessive bail and drawing/quartering. It's been interpreted to prevent barbaric punishments. It's rarely invoked, and it definitely would not be relevant if someone got prison time for refusing to serve protected classes in a state. The supreme court has given state and local authorities such wide discretion in the implementation of sentencing that your 8th amendment argument is way off base.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Punishment fitting the crime is a Constitutional requirement, bro.

And I'm saying any crime could theoretically end in force if you ignore enough shit. Why do you care about the distant possibility enough to call it the punishment for discrimination only? How can you support any laws if any law can be punished by direct force? By your own logic, the punishment for all crimes is being held at gunpoint.
---