Tag Archives: Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Alliance Defending Freedom defeats secular left fascist Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign
Gay activist vandalizes pro-marriage sign

When we last heard about Jack Phillips, we had good news: he won his case against the Colorado LGBT fascists at the Supreme Court. But they weren’t done persecuting him, yet! Almost immediately after the SCOTUS win, they charged him again for refusing to bake another LGBT cake. Fortunately for Jack, the Alliance Defending Freedom defended him again.

Here’s the latest from Daily Wire:

Christian cake artist Jack Phillips has scored a major victory after facing years of continuous persecution for his religious beliefs from LGBT activists and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a Christian nonprofit that advocates for religious freedom and traditional values, announced Tuesday that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission “will dismiss its most recent charges against cake artist Jack Phillips in the wake of newly discovered evidence of the state’s ongoing hostility toward religious freedom.”

In response to the clearly-targeted harassment of Mr. Phillips, ADF attorneys filed Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Elenis.

“We’re pleased that the state will be dismissing its case against Jack,” said ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner, who represented Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. “This is the second time the state has launched a failed effort to prosecute him. While it finally appears to be getting the message that its anti-religious hostility has no place in our country, the state’s decision to target Jack has cost him more than six-and-a-half years of his life, forcing him to spend that time tied up in legal proceedings.”

This sort of coercion by the secular left happens all the time.

I’ve reported on this blog about fake hate crimes, vandalism, violence, threats, death threats, attempted firings, actual firings, and many other power plays. So why do secular left fascists insist on persecuting people who disagree with them on moral issues? Why are they so comfortable using polical power to coerce others against their conscience?

Well, it turns out that there are some behaviors that the Bible calls sinful. And when people perform those behaviors, they start to feel guilty about what they are doing. That’s because God made people to not sin. Now, some people deal with these feelings of guilt about their sin by repenting, and turning towards God, and trusting him. But others just shut their minds to the evidence for God’s existence, e.g. – the Big Bang cosmology, the fine-tuning, the origin of life. Without God, they are forced into the view that objective morality, free will, and moral duties are all illusory. But they still feel badly about their sin. In order to deal with those bad feelings, they try to force everyone who still accepts morality to celebrate their abandonment of morality. And when asking others to agree doesn’t work, they go on to shame, silence and/or coerce others. And as we’ve seen on this blog, this can involve doing pretty much anything you can imagine. Sin makes people do terrible, terrible things to those who disagree with sin.

Are Christians tolerant?

Now let’s switch sides. What does a Christian do when faced with disagreement from a non-Christian? Well, Christians learn by watching God what to do with sinners. What does God do? God provides evidence of his existence to those who are open minded, and he leads those who trust him to make better moral decisions so that they don’t harm themselves and others by being self-centered. Christians also debate and disagree with arguments and evidence. Also, consider that God could squash everyone who disagreed with him right now, but he doesn’t. He’s giving them their whole lives to decide what to do with him. He offers evidence, forgiveness and leadership to those are open-hearted, and open-minded. But the others, he just leaves alone for now. And that’s what Christians do with non-Christians. We leave them alone. While a non-Christian is still alive, they have to be appealed to rationally, and treated with love and care. They have value because they were made in the image of God, to know the God who made them in a personal relationship. Christians believe that if a person doesn’t believe in Christ as Lord and Savior, then that person shouldn’t be forced to act as if they do by threats, violence, etc.

Tolerance and the secular left

But what about the secular left? The secular left are fascists, because they want Christians to behave as if they were non-Christians. And that’s why Christians need to do everything they can in the realm of law and policy to prevent secular leftists from getting into power. Secular leftists can’t ground objective morality or natural human rights on their worldview. Human rights have no meaning for secular leftists – they’re just nonsense. So, for them, anything is permissible in their quest to force others to approve of them. That’s why secular leftists need to be kept as far away from political power as the East is from the West. If you want to know what happens when they get it, just look at the atrocities committed by atheistic regimes in the 20th century, e.g. – the Soviety Union. People on the secular left are not moral people. Morality is the furthest thing from their minds.

Highlights from day one of the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court case

Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom argued Jack Phillips’ case before the Supreme Court. (Photo: Jeff Malet/The Heritage Foundation) Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom argued Jack Phillips’ case before the Supreme Court. (Photo: Jeff Malet/The Heritage Foundation)

I thought it might be worth reading about the first day of arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. Not only can we find out what is likely to happen, but we’ll also learn how the ADF lawyer Kristen Waggoner is making her defense.

The Daily Signal reports:

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments on Tuesday in a closely watched case dealing with free speech, religious liberty, and same-sex marriage.

Specifically, the justices considered whether the state of Colorado can force Jack Phillips, a Christian baker, to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding against his deeply held religious beliefs.

Attorneys for Phillips clearly explained that he seeks to exercise his freedom only to speak messages that he agrees with, while still welcoming all customers into his store. The First Amendment’s free speech and religious liberty clauses protect his freedoms to do just that.

In a lengthy and charged oral argument, the nine justices wrestled with how Americans who hold different views on marriage in our post-Obergefell society can continue to live with each other in mutual respect.

Here is the key that might predict the outcome, from the Supreme Court’s swing vote:

In one of the most charged exchanges of the day, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger about whether a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who compared Phillips to a racist and a Nazi demonstrated anti-religious bias—and that, if he did so, whether the judgment against Masterpiece should stand.

More:

After disavowing the commissioner’s comments, Yarger argued that the ruling should still stand. But Kennedy returned to the issue again, telling Yarger that “tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”

Kennedy also pointed out there were other cake shops that would have accommodated Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the same-sex couple who requested a cake for their wedding.

In a similar line of questioning, Justice Samuel Alito pointed out that the state of Colorado had failed to demonstrate mutual tolerance when it only protected the freedom of cake artists who landed on one side of the gay marriage debate—namely, the state’s side.

When three religious customers went to cake artists to request cakes that were critical of same-sex marriage, those cake artists declined—yet Colorado did not apply its anti-discrimination statute to punish the artists. But when Phillips declined to create a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage, Colorado imposed a three-pronged penalty that drove him out of the wedding cake business, causing him to lose 40 percent of his business.

[…]In the exchange with Alito, the Colorado solicitor general said that cake artists could not discriminate on the basis of identity, but could discriminate on the basis of messages. Gorsuch later responded, saying that’s exactly what Phillips has argued.

It was also made clear that Phillips was not discriminating against identity, but just refusing to agree with the state’s position on same-sex marriage.

During the oral arguments, the court appeared to recognize what is patently obvious from the facts. Phillips welcomes all people into his store, encourages them to buy off-the-shelf items, and will make custom-designed cakes for them provided they don’t ask for items that violate his beliefs.

He has served gays for the 24 years his store has been in operation and welcomes their business to this day. He does not discriminate against anybody because of their identity.

So comparisons to shopkeepers in the Jim Crow South who sought to keep the races “separate but equal” are a smear that divert attention from the real issue: Phillips simply disagrees with the state on the issue of marriage.

More:

Finally, the oral arguments revealed the scope of how far the state of Colorado is willing to go to impose its views of marriage on citizens. In one line of questioning from Roberts, Colorado admitted that it would force Catholic Legal Services to provide a same-sex couple with legal services related to their wedding even if it violates Catholic teachings on marriage.

And in questioning from Alito, the ACLU answered that the state could force a Christian college whose creed opposes same-sex marriage to perform a same-sex wedding in its chapel.

I was listening to the latest Ben Shapiro podcast, and in the last 10 minutes, he talked about the case. He pointed out that at the time when Phillips refused to participate in a same-sex marriage, same-sex marriage was not even legal in Colorado. Nevertheless, Colorado went after him. Hard. I think they secular left is going to lose this case – it’s just too much fascism. Too much intolerance.

You can read more about Kristen Waggoner here. She’s also arguing the Arlen’s Flowers v. the State of Washington case. A great lady. A real hero.

If you’re looking for a great book to read on what comes after same-sex marriage and how to discuss and debate it, read Ryan T. Anderon’s “Truth Overruled: The Future of Marriage and Religious Liberty“. It’s the best book for laymen on the subject. Really helps you to know how to talk about this issue. I had to do it a week ago with one of my atheist co-workers who asked ME out to lunch to talk more about his spiritual journey. If you don’t read, you can’t defend.