Let's cover several numbered points to keep things clear:
1. Jack, the man in this case, has refused to make a gay marriage theme cake (from the video and one of the hearings). This is part of his convictions on the type of work he will accept.
2. He has even refused to do anti-LGBTQ+ cakes, as well. But you don't hear or read lefties talking about that, do you?
(3:35, in the video)
3. And he never turned their business away, he turned away their gay wedding cake request. Offered cookies, birthday cakes, etc. He did not turn them away.
4. If this was simply a "regular wedding" cake, then there would not be the need to ask him for the custom cake, which is what was refused. If this was a regular cake, then they could have selected from any of the other non-custom cakes for their occasion. What he refused was to apply his artistic talents to a gay-wedding cake.
So, please, peeps....just watch the video and don't spread misinformation.
In Jack's own words (with me adding numbers to correspond to the points):
"With Kennedy seemingly holding the key vote, the couple and their supporters at first seemed to have reason to be optimistic. Discussing the impact that a ruling for the baker could have for gays and lesbians, Kennedy told Solicitor General Noel Francisco, who argued on behalf of the United States in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop, that if the baker were to win, he could put up a sign indicating that he would not bake cakes for same-sex couples. That, Kennedy suggested, would be “an affront to the gay community.”
But the tide seemed to shift later in the argument, as Kennedy asked Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger, representing the state, about a statement by a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who noted that religious beliefs had in the past been used to justify other forms of discrimination, like slavery and the Holocaust. It is, the commission member contended, “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use their religion to hurt others.” If we thought that at least this member of the commission had based his decision on hostility to religion, Kennedy asked Yarger, could the judgment against Masterpiece stand?
That wasn’t all:
Kennedy returned to this idea again a few minutes later, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society.” But Colorado, Kennedy posited, hasn’t been very tolerant of Phillips’ religious beliefs in this case. And, following up on Gorsuch’s suggestion that the training required of Phillips would amount to compelled speech, Kennedy commented (more than a little derisively) that Phillips would “have to teach that state law supersedes our religious beliefs.”
That last Kennedy comment harks back to what he wrote in the Obergefell case, where he established a constitutional right to marry someone of the same sex:
The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. The same is true of those who oppose same-sex marriage for other reasons.
David French is fascinated and encouraged by Kennedy’s fixation on “Colorado’s” animus towards religious belief. He writes:
Justice Kennedy labels a common leftist talking point — that freedom of religion is used to justify discrimination — a “despicable piece of rhetoric.” Kennedy then went on to raise the question of whether there was “a significant aspect of hostility to a religion in this case.”
Many progressives have been playing the bigotry card since the inception of this case, but Justice Kennedy raises the possibility that the true bigots may have been the government officials who punished Jack Phillips.
Again, that harks back to his opinion in Obergefell.
French is also heartened by this exchange between Kennedy and the lawyer for the gay couple:
JUSTICE KENNEDY: Well, but this whole concept of identity is a slightly — suppose he says: Look, I have nothing against — against gay people. He says but I just don’t think they should have a marriage because that’s contrary to my beliefs. It’s not -_
MR. COLE: Yeah.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: It’s not their identity; it’s what they’re doing.
MR. COLE: Yeah.
JUSTICE KENNEDY: I think it’s — your identity thing is just too facile.
Phillips never, ever, discriminated on the basis of identity. He merely refused to use his talents to support actions and messages he believes to be immoral.
Justice Kennedy gets the key distinction in this case. Now let’s hope this thought makes it into the opinion of the Court."
I love the slapping down of the talking point about religion being used to discriminate.
__________________ "I know it's gonna work because it's impossible"-George Lucas
Last edited by Surtur on Dec 6th, 2017 at 12:35 AM
Gender: Male Location: The Proud Nation of Kekistan
Yeah I hope the couple doesn't win, the idea that you can force someone to express something they disagree with is disgusting. This is America not Canada.
Shadilay my brothers and sisters. With any luck we will throw off the shackles of normie oppression. We have nothing to lose but our chains! Praise Kek!
THE MOTTO IS "IN KEK WE TRUST"
Ignore those bits, they don't make a further argument invalid, even when they weaken the position of the speaker themselves.
I repeat: it may be against his views, but is not against his religion, which is what he is claiming.