You are correct he did not say the statement as I quoted.  He agreed to make a cake for a dog wedding, then later when asked admitted to that statement also adding that he would not do it for two women.  It was two separate statements.

 This can be found in CO case# CR-2013-0008 as well as CO ACLU, the ACLU contains only the first part where he was asked about dog weddings.

http://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/files/Probable%20Cause%20Determination%...


[i]  "Actually, the ruling was based on the fact the Colorado court was so heavily anti-christian biased, they did not even consider the baker's opinion seriously."

 The Supreme Court viewed it differently, and by my assessment in the opposite way.  "Commission's review of the case lacked the religious neutrality required"  

WebsterMark wrote on 06/05/18 at 05:51:58:



 Ok I see what you are saying.  I don't think the initial ruling was anti-Christian but I do think it was wrong.

Eegore wrote on 06/05/18 at 05:44:07:

 You are correct he did not say the statement as I quoted.  He agreed to make a cake for a dog wedding, then later when asked admitted to that statement also adding that he would not do it for two women.  It was two separate statements.
 This can be found in CO case# CR-2013-0008 as well as CO ACLU, the ACLU contains only the first part where he was asked about dog weddings.   http://aclu-co.org/wp-content/uploads/filesProbable%20Cause%20Determination%2...
 "Actually, the ruling was based on the fact the Colorado court was so heavily anti-christian biased, they did not even consider the baker's opinion seriously."  The Supreme Court viewed it differently, and by my assessment in the opposite way.  "Commission's review of the case lacked the religious neutrality required"  

          More on the ‘Baker’ thing.

First, the baker NEVER SAID:
“I'd make a cake for two dogs, but not for two women."
What Happened was:
[i]“ During this conversation, S. Schmalz claimed to be a dog breeder and stated that she planned to host a "dog wedding" between one of her dogs and a neighbor's dog. Phillips did not object to preparing a cake for S. Schmalz's "dog wedding."

The ‘charge’ issued by DORA, should have  NEVER  been issued in the first place. The Burden of Proof, is on the Couple.
The, Couple, Never PROVED, their point. In Fact, they Proved the Opposite, by stating they KNEW, the baker would sell them cupcakes other cakes  etc. for other events. They, ‘Cried’ about the Baker, saying, ‘Illegal’, Which a same sex Marriage in CO  WAS.
It was clear, they were, ’Shopping’,  for someone to NOT, make a Cake, JUST  so they could SUE.
The baker did NOT, discriminate against a Gay, But would not do something to celebrate, something that was, ILLEGAL.  
In fact the Baker, CLEARLY, stated he would sell something in the shop, which had NOTHING to do with their sexual orientation.
So, making that special cake, for a, ILLEGAL  event.  AND, the Violation of the Bakers Religion.

That document/charge, is a clear, stereotype, example, of the personal opinion, of the writer, who gets paid a tremendous amount of money, to push a piece of paper back and forth on his/her desk.

Wonder what the ultra-Liberal, Kum-By-You singing, Snowflakes,
would say, if someone wanted a custom cake baked to,
Celebrate a  Bank Robbery ?  Or a Jail Break ?  Or a  Murder ?

Face it, it's a business.
The owner has taken risks to have a business.
The owner WANTS to make money.
And doesn't want people angry.

But it's HIS business and whatever policies he uses will affect the bottom line.

So, when a business owner says No, you can bet it's for good reason.

Should a business owner mistreat the people

What is gonna happen?
Get rich?
Go broke?
People have a right to NOT DO what they can't do in good conscience.

WebsterMark wrote on 06/05/18 at 07:13:12:



 What part of that is specific to Christians?

Eegore wrote on 06/05/18 at 10:04:40:


I thought Kennedy's point was well made. You don't see it?

Serowbot wrote on 06/04/18 at 15:20:21:

SCOTUS is on the wrong side of history with this one.
In the 60's this baker would be refusing a wedding cake to a mixed race couple....

WARNING WILL ROBERTSON - WARNING- WARNING
                (A  Drive  BY)

           The Left, is seldom Right