Baker must make gay cakes

[martybegan]

You say: "So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail."
This is a false dichotomy.
Mr. Phillips has other options including:

Having a meeting with God and realizing that maybe God doesn't hate gay people.
Changing careers.
Moving to Arizona where there is no provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Start a private club that includes baking services, though this might cost him some licenses and exclude him from opening shop in certain areas, depending on the state and local laws.
Continue his blind obstinacy until the courts shut his business down.​

What's more, there has been no talk of jail time except by news sources trying to stir up support for Mr. Phillips. The fact is that Mr. Phillips is allowed to remain in business and is supposed to give reports as to how he is removing discrimination from his business. It is far more likely that the obstinacy of Mr. Phillips will result in his bakery being stripped of any and all licenses needed to operate a bakery.

So no, the case of Mr. Phillips is not an example of the big bad liberal demanding the good and wholesome Christian conform to the laws of New Sodom or face the wrath of the mob. To be perfectly candid, your attempt to frame this case as such, even if you used softer wording, is not conducive to a constructive discussion.

Your forgot the most simple solution:

Mr. Phillips continues to operate his bakery in the present location but chooses to not provide wedding cakes are part of his business model.​

Since the business does not offer wedding cakes, Mr. Phillips would not be required to supply them to anyone.



>>>>

Which, I believe, is the route Mr. Phillips chose. He won't be making any more dog wedding cakes.

I guess this makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, in a vindictive bitch sort of way.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Which, I believe, is the route Mr. Phillips chose. He won't be making any more dog wedding cakes.

True, the whole "abandon his faith or go to jail" meme is false. There are perfectly legal options where neither would happen.


On top of that "Jail" isn't even in the offing:

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

(1) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.

(2) Repealed.

(3) The relief provided by this section is an alternative to that authorized by section 24-34-306 (9), and a person who seeks redress under this section is not permitted to seek relief from the commission.​

A fine (commission ruling) or pay damages (if it goes to court).

The whole "go to jail" thing is not in the law.

>>>>

It will be not too long, just like the laws already are in the English speaking world outside the USA where the queers have gotten heir way and it is criminalized as hate speech.

And the meme just to help you out here, is not abandon faith or go to jail, it is abandon faith or get persecuted by queers that have far too much influence in this nation for their proportion of the population.

This will change.

 

[WorldWatcher]

As for the catering services, same thing. If one cannot attend a gay wedding ceremony due to conflict with religious beliefs, the so called public accommodation laws would be forcing the caterer to choose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail.

And the meme just to help you out here, is not abandon faith or go to jail, it is abandon faith or get persecuted by queers that have far too much influence in this nation for their proportion of the population.

This will change.

The post I was responding to specifically said go to jail.


Never said their wouldn't be consequences from society for discriminating.



>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

[Agreed, that's what I said.

Just as your hypothetical Nun's are able to define the services they provide, so also can the baker decide what services he will provide.

The Nun's can choose not to provide any abortion services and whether they are "Nuns" or not is irrelevant and just an attempt to pull emotional strings on your part. ANY OB/GYN can choose to not provide abortion services as part of his/her practice. As a result there is no violation of Public Accommodation laws because they aren't provided to anyone.

Same goes for the baker. He can choose not to provide wedding cakes as part of the goods and services (s)he offers. If none are offered to the public, there is no conflict with Public Accommodation laws. However it is against the law for the baker to say "I'll bake wedding cakes for whites but not for blacks", "I'll bake wedding cakes for Christians but not for Jews", "I'll bake wedding cakes for the Irish but not for Mexicans", "I'll bake wedding cakes for straights but not for gays", or "I'll bake wedding cakes for first marriages but not for someone divorced".

The law does not require what goods and services be offered, only that those goods and services cannot be provided to some groups of customers but not other customer groups.


>>>>

Your analogy is incorrect. If the nuns provide PREGNANCY services [one of many services they choose to offer healthwise] but refuse to provide any type of pregnancy services that have to do with abortion or termination, then they refuse on religious grounds.

If a baker provides WEDDING cakes [one of many services he chooses to offer confectionwise] but refuses to provide any type of wedding cakes for those who practice gay sex, then he refuses on religious grounds.

The post I was responding to specifically said go to jail.


Never said their wouldn't be consequences from society for discriminating.



>>>>

If I refused to bake a gay wedding cake on religious grounds and someone had me fined or put in jail, I'd sue their ass SO HARD that they wouldn't need gay sex to feel the pain down there..lol..

In fact, if I was a struggling baker in some town where gays were likely to pull their "let's get the shop owner in trouble" stunts, I'd pray for them to do it. Then I'd sue them using the 1st Amendment and I would cite Jude 1 for my reasons for refusal. They cannot dictate if I make wedding cakes or not. And they cannot dictate if I refuse to make a gay wedding cake or not because of 1st Amendment protections. Also it could be construed that the freedom of speech also means the freedom NOT to speak: where nobody can force you to get on their bandwagon and via your actions "speak out" in favor or support of their cause.

Bring it on!

 

[WorldWatcher]

Bring it on!

Who you going to sue? A state agency for following state law?

You wouldn't "sue" you would be the defendant. So what you would be doing is "appealing" not "suing". Just because you can though doesn't mean you will win. Masterpiece Cakes is only at the administrative level at this point and they lost. We'll have to see how their appeal proceeds if they choose to do so.


However the Elane Photography, a state law case, has gone all the way the the New Mexico Supreme Court and they lost.

Elane Photography v. Vanessa Willock




ETA - Elane Photograph appealed to the United States Supreme Court and their appeal was denied so the NMSC ruling is the final word. (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/elane-photography-llc-v-willock/)


>>>>

 

[Silhouette]

Bring it on!

Who you going to sue? A state agency for following state law?
You wouldn't "sue" you would be the defendant. So what you would be doing is "appealing" not "suing". Just because you can though doesn't mean you will win. Masterpiece Cakes is only at the administrative level at this point and they lost. We'll have to see how their appeal proceeds if they choose to do so...

No, I would SUE. And I would do so based on the grounds of suppression of my constitutional civil rights. I'd leave it up to a sharp lawyer to write up and figure out who violated what in my rights. I think he could get that done too...

Probably sue the members of the agency who tried to suppress my civil rights. Also I would sue the gay people especially if one of my cameras picked up any surreptitious behavior where it looked like a stunt. I'd subpoena their phone records, texts etc. to show there was malice of intent and intent to harm me. Of course it would wind up in the US Supreme Court. I'd feel confident for a win: especially on the angle of forcing someone to speak when they do not want to. But on religious grounds also. My lawyer would become famous.

How about it sharp attorneys? Anyone want nationwide notoriety and a share of the damages?

 

[jillian]

If I refused to bake a gay wedding cake on religious grounds and someone had me fined or put in jail, I'd sue their ass SO HARD that they wouldn't need gay sex to feel the pain down there..lol..

In fact, if I was a struggling baker in some town where gays were likely to pull their "let's get the shop owner in trouble" stunts, I'd pray for them to do it. Then I'd sue them using the 1st Amendment and I would cite Jude 1 for my reasons for refusal. They cannot dictate if I make wedding cakes or not. And they cannot dictate if I refuse to make a gay wedding cake or not because of 1st Amendment protections. Also it could be construed that the freedom of speech also means the freedom NOT to speak: where nobody can force you to get on their bandwagon and via your actions "speak out" in favor or support of their cause.

Bring it on!

How could you sue based on the loss of a court case? you could certainly appeal. but once your appeals are exhausted, that's pretty much it.

it has already been determined that forcing a business not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sexual identity is not a violation of the first amendment... at least not under the case being discussed.

so what freedom is violated? your freedom to violate anti-discrimination laws? your freedom to violate others' equal protection under the law?

where's your cause of action?

good luck with that. if I were on the receiving end of that suit, i'd ask for sanctions, including payment of my legal fees

 

[Silhouette]

If I refused to bake a gay wedding cake on religious grounds and someone had me fined or put in jail, I'd sue their ass SO HARD that they wouldn't need gay sex to feel the pain down there..lol..

In fact, if I was a struggling baker in some town where gays were likely to pull their "let's get the shop owner in trouble" stunts, I'd pray for them to do it. Then I'd sue them using the 1st Amendment and I would cite Jude 1 for my reasons for refusal. They cannot dictate if I make wedding cakes or not. And they cannot dictate if I refuse to make a gay wedding cake or not because of 1st Amendment protections. Also it could be construed that the freedom of speech also means the freedom NOT to speak: where nobody can force you to get on their bandwagon and via your actions "speak out" in favor or support of their cause.

Bring it on!

How could you sue based on the loss of a court case? you could certainly appeal. but once your appeals are exhausted, that's pretty much it.

it has already been determined that forcing a business not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion or sexual identity is not a violation of the first amendment... at least not under the case being discussed.

so what freedom is violated? your freedom to violate anti-discrimination laws? your freedom to violate others' equal protection under the law?

where's your cause of action?

good luck with that. if I were on the receiving end of that suit, i'd ask for sanctions, including payment of my legal fees

I already said I would take it to the US Supreme Court. I'd do it in a state that hasn't met that challenge yet. I'd march it up. What don't you get about that? You cannot force someone to abandon their faith in such a way that would qualify them to be, for example, excommunicated. And you cannot force someone to "speak" [make a gay wedding cake] in support of a cause or activity [not a race, because gays are behaviors, not race] that violates their spirituality at its core.

I'd win. And you know I would..

If you accept the premise, as I do, that LGBT is more properly a cult and not a race of people, what you really have with all this cake BS is one cult trying to force a thousands year old religion to bow to its seedy Johnny-come-lately altar as a matter of law and against the faithful's will. And to make it worse for the LGBT devotees, famous ones in their ranks have actually said in print this is their goal...

Where is the Pope on this? Where is the Vatican? Makes you wonder what they really do at their jobs if not making a public stand for the faithful..

 

[WorldWatcher]

I already said I would take it to the US Supreme Court. I'd do it in a state that hasn't met that challenge yet. I'd march it up. What don't you get about that? You cannot force someone to abandon their faith in such a way that would qualify them to be, for example, excommunicated. And you cannot force someone to "speak" [make a gay wedding cake] in support of a cause or activity [not a race, because gays are behaviors, not race] that violates their spirituality at its core.

I'd win. And you know I would..

Elane Photograph appealed to the United States Supreme Court and their appeal was denied so the NMSC ruling is the final word. (Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock : SCOTUSblog)



>>>>

 

[Katzndogz]

If you don't like "renouncing his faith" you can use violating his principles. That's just as good. The whole point was to force the man to violate his principles, make him a hypocrite, the one who sells out his religion and principles for money. That's the point. Gays don't care who has religion or principles, as long as they can force both to be violated at their whim.

 

[Silhouette]

If you don't like "renouncing his faith" you can use violating his principles. That's just as good. The whole point was to force the man to violate his principles, make him a hypocrite, the one who sells out his religion and principles for money. That's the point. Gays don't care who has religion or principles, as long as they can force both to be violated at their whim.

Actually, there have been famous gay activists who have admitted in print their goal is to dismantle christianity. I'm not a practicing christian but this can be seen as anyone as alarming and worth the fight to resist just in principle. Which again begs the question, where is the Pope? The Vatican? Open war has been declared and they sit silent on their hands. They could be fearing another blackmail attempt by gays?

" The legal struggle for queer rights will one day be a struggle between freedom of religion versus sexual orientation.” – Canadian lesbian lawyer Barbara Finlay, quoted by columnist John Leo and Janet Folger (Porter), “The Criminalization of Christianity”

There is a war between homosexual “rights” and Americans’ religious and First Amendment freedoms – and the “gay” activists are winning.

The “zero-sum game” is how homosexual activist law professor and Obama EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) appointee Chai Feldblum describes the legal battles between modern “rights” based on homosexual “orientation” (read: behavior) and the traditional American principle of religious liberty.

“Gays win, Christians lose,” Feldblum said, predicting homosexuals would win most of the legal contests. She is proving to be correct, as the news for Americans with traditional values gets worse by the year, due to rapidly escalating homosexual and transgender activist power in the legal, cultural, political and corporate arenas.... http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/gay-power-vs-religious-liberty/

I argue again that you cannot force someone to speak. And this would be protected under the 1st. Forcing someone to make a gay wedding cakes is forcing them to speak out in favor of a group of behaviors they are vehemently opposed to. In order to win, LGBTs would have to prove they are a race of people and not behaviors instead.

And I've got ammunition galore to win that point. From the most prestigious outfits in the world.

If you wanted to win every single legal battle in the world that LGBTs are bringing to force everyone to be going to hell with them, all you'd have to do is prove that LGBTs are behaviors. There is AMPLE evidence to support this from the most respected institutions in the developed world. Gays would completely flop trying to prove theirs were innate behaviors. Anne Heche is your first clue on proving that. We cannot say that learned complusive behaviors are innate. Perhaps the predisposition to be a compulsive in any arena might be innate, but not specifically homosexually compulsive. Every gay person I've ever spoken to that is in touch with their past, will admit that they were molested by same-gendered perps. And it seems to not bother them at a given point. Some of them actually refer back fondly to the incidents as sculpting who they are today. Keyword: sculpting....

 

[JimBowie1958]

As for the catering services, same thing. If one cannot attend a gay wedding ceremony due to conflict with religious beliefs, the so called public accommodation laws would be forcing the caterer to choose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail.

And the meme just to help you out here, is not abandon faith or go to jail, it is abandon faith or get persecuted by queers that have far too much influence in this nation for their proportion of the population.

This will change.

The post I was responding to specifically said go to jail.


Never said their wouldn't be consequences from society for discriminating.



>>>>

My point is that is not the meme Christians discuss, and you are moving the goal posts to pretend that it is the meme, no matter which post you respond to.

 

[WorldWatcher]

My point is that is not the meme Christians discuss, and you are moving the goal posts to pretend that it is the meme, no matter which post you respond to.

Maybe you should have been the one to correct Jughead that the possibility was not involved.

Then you should explain to him that as a Christian on the internet he shouldn't discuss it.


>>>>

 

[Seawytch]

Your forgot the most simple solution:

Mr. Phillips continues to operate his bakery in the present location but chooses to not provide wedding cakes are part of his business model.​

Since the business does not offer wedding cakes, Mr. Phillips would not be required to supply them to anyone.







>>>>

Which, I believe, is the route Mr. Phillips chose. He won't be making any more dog wedding cakes.

I guess this makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, in a vindictive bitch sort of way.

Nope. My preference would have been for him to not be a bigot. Oh well...

 

[martybegan]

Which, I believe, is the route Mr. Phillips chose. He won't be making any more dog wedding cakes.

I guess this makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, in a vindictive bitch sort of way.

Nope. My preference would have been for him to not be a bigot. Oh well...

What you want is for him to accept and endorse your lifestyle, and you want to force him to do it via government fiat. In this case his service provided is not a nessasary one, no real harm has come to the couple who he denied the service, and they probably got another baker 10 minutes later. yet you want to ruin him or force him to accept and condone your lifestyle against his will and his morality.

i.e, you are a vindictive bitch.

Also, we have defined the term bigot down to the point where anyone who disagrees with ANY progressive position is a bigot, even if they do nothing active to injure any of the special class parties.

 

[Jughead]

They shouldn’t, and they don’t; one has absolutely nothing to do with the other.

Public accommodations laws in no way ‘violate’ the rights enshrined in the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

You and most others on the right are apparently determined to remain willfully ignorant concerning this simple, fundamental fact of Constitutional law.

The Employment Division Court, whose decision was unanimous and authored by Justice Scalia, explains in a clear, logical, wise, and reasonable manner why religion cannot be used as justification to violate proper, appropriate, and Constitutional measures – such as public accommodations laws.

So you then believe that it's acceptable for Mr. Phillips to have to choose between renouncing his faith or going to jail?

Since nobody is making him "renounce his faith", your question in moot...and hyperbolic.

If he goes against his religious teachings, and bakes a cake for a gay wedding, he is abandoning his faith, plain and simple. It's not rocket science. How can you claim a faith when you don't follow it's teachings?

A Colorado bakery owner said he would rather go to jail than serve gay couples, despite an order to do so.

A judge ordered Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver, to “cease and desist from discriminating” against same-sex couples, despite Phillips’ religious beliefs. Judge Robert Spencer said Phillips discriminated against a couple last year “because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage.”

On Tuesday’s episode of Fox & Friends, Jack Phillips told host Elisabeth Hasselbeck that he didn’t plan on abandoning his beliefs because of the judge’s order.

Hasselbeck asked if Phillips believed he was acting within his Constitutional rights denying the couple. Phillips said he hadn’t thought about it at the time, but looking back, he would say that “the United States Constitution, as well as the Colorado constitution, both protect my right to practice my religious beliefs while I’m at my work.”

Hasselbeck also asked why it was important for Phillips to stand by his personal religious beliefs instead of just trying to make a buck. Phillips said he isn’t just trying to make money, but genuinely loves baking.

“I believe it’s what God’s designed for me to do, but I don’t believe that I need to drop my religious convictions at any time for any reason,” Phillips said.

Nicolle Martin, Phillips’ attorney, said, “If the government can force you to violate your beliefs under the threat of a jail sentence, there’s really no freedom they can’t take away, Elisabeth.”

Hasselbeck then asked if Phillips would be willing to go to jail for his beliefs.

“If that’s what it takes, I guess I would be,” he said. “I don’t plan on giving up my religious beliefs. It’s not like I chose this team or that team. It’s who I am, it’s what I believe."

Colorado Baker Would go to Jail Rather Than Renounce His Faith

 

[Jughead]

I'm not sure how you are classifying any fancy cake as gay or not gay. No one has provided a definition of "gay cake". If you are going to refuse to bake "gay cake" you will need to provide some definition. You may not be required to bake "gay cake" if "gay cake" has some meaning pertaining to the actual shape or content of the cake.
Example: If you choose to label carrot cake as "gay cake", well, you actually have no legal requirement to make a carrot cake and you are free to call carrot cake "gay". That is to say if someone came into your store and said "I'd like a carrot cake" you could reply "we don't make carrot cakes here". However, if you instead replied "We don't make no damn dirty gay cakes!" because you hold "carrot" and "gay" to be synonymous then you might have to explain yourself before some authority. I doubt that authority would know you thought of carrot cake as "gay" and the authority may not accept your explanation and instead cite animus on your part.

No one can force you to put some objectionable ingredient you don't carry into a cake. But generally you can't refuse service to a person who will enjoy a cake you have baked because you dislike "their kind".
Example: If you ran a gluten-free bakery, no one could force you to use gluten. But you can't refuse service because a gay person might enjoy eating one of your gluten-free cakes.

If it is your intention to label the cake "gay" because ostensibly gay people are going to eat that cake then you are in violation of public accommodation laws regardless of how you choose to label the cake. This is because the cake has not actually changed state. The thing to which you object is that gay people might enjoy it. Do you understand that difference?

Lastly, being a baker does not imply being a caterer. There are plenty of bakers who bake cakes and don't slice up the cake at an event afterward. If in addition to baked goods you offer catering services and those catering services are listed in your state as public accommodation, then you may be in violation of public accommodation when you chase a same-sex couple out of your store.

Mr. Phillips was told that the cake would be used for a gay wedding ceremony. He had replied to the two fellows that he would not prepare any cake for any gay wedding ceremony, as he would be going against his religious beliefs. He does not want to abandon his faith. So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail. He is a man of faith, thus I'll bet that he will be going to jail in order to keep practicing his faith. He has already stated in the past that he is ready to go to jail.

As for the catering services, same thing. If one cannot attend a gay wedding ceremony due to conflict with religious beliefs, the so called public accommodation laws would be forcing the caterer to choose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail.

You say: "So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail."
This is a false dichotomy.
Mr. Phillips has other options including:

Having a meeting with God and realizing that maybe God doesn't hate gay people.
Changing careers.
Moving to Arizona where there is no provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Start a private club that includes baking services, though this might cost him some licenses and exclude him from opening shop in certain areas, depending on the state and local laws.
Continue his blind obstinacy until the courts shut his business down.​

What's more, there has been no talk of jail time except by news sources trying to stir up support for Mr. Phillips. The fact is that Mr. Phillips is allowed to remain in business and is supposed to give reports as to how he is removing discrimination from his business. It is far more likely that the obstinacy of Mr. Phillips will result in his bakery being stripped of any and all licenses needed to operate a bakery.

So no, the case of Mr. Phillips is not an example of the big bad liberal demanding the good and wholesome Christian conform to the laws of New Sodom or face the wrath of the mob. To be perfectly candid, your attempt to frame this case as such, even if you used softer wording, is not conducive to a constructive discussion.

Having a meeting with God, as you stated above would be equivalent to switching faiths. It would be absurd to change my faith because of a public accommodation law.

Also, why should I change careers because of a public accommodation law? No one should need to choose between his faith or his livelihood.

Being forced to move because of one's faith reminds me of countries like Iran.

Also, jail is indeed a real possibility.

Therefore, Jack Phillips is currently under a court order to bake same-sex wedding cakes if asked to do so. Under a Colorado law in effect in 2012, Phillips could be sent to jail for up to 12 months for his decision.

A judge last year also acknowledged that Mr. Phillips would indeed be acting against his faith by baking the cake.

Craig and Mullins complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On Dec. 6, 2013, an administrative law judge—Robert Spencer—ruled that Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips violated Colorado’s antidiscrimination law. Spencer ordered Phillips to bake cakes celebrating gay marriage for any other parties that ask for such a cake in the future.

Spencer readily acknowledged the authenticity of Phillips’s faith, including in his findings of fact:

Phillips has been a Christian for approximately 35 years, and believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. As a Christian, Phillips’ main goal in life is to be obedient to Jesus and His teachings in all aspects of his life[;] Phillips believes the Bible is the inspired word of God[;] its commands are binding on him[;] God’s intention for marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

Relevant to his professional work, Spencer included as a factual finding, “Phillips believes that if he uses his artistic talents to participate in same-sex weddings by creating a wedding cake, he will be displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible.”

Phillips’s lead lawyer is Nicolle Martin, who is representing him pro bono as part of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), a network of over 2,000 Christian attorneys nationwide who defend people in their local communities when their religious liberties are violated.

Spencer understands Martin’s argument that Phillips uses his artistic talents to make cakes that convey a message. Phillips is engaging in a form of speech when he makes a cake, and making a gay-marriage cake for these two men would therefore compel him to send a message that his religious conscience cannot allow.

Nonetheless, Spencer held that all this “fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.”

In other words, Phillips has no right to follow his Christian faith, or any other religion, when it involves refusing to embrace and celebrate gay marriage, even if there is no legal same-sex marriage in the state where all this happened.

Baker Faces Prison For Refusing To Bake Gay Cake

 

[Jughead]

Mr. Phillips was told that the cake would be used for a gay wedding ceremony. He had replied to the two fellows that he would not prepare any cake for any gay wedding ceremony, as he would be going against his religious beliefs. He does not want to abandon his faith. So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail. He is a man of faith, thus I'll bet that he will be going to jail in order to keep practicing his faith. He has already stated in the past that he is ready to go to jail.

As for the catering services, same thing. If one cannot attend a gay wedding ceremony due to conflict with religious beliefs, the so called public accommodation laws would be forcing the caterer to choose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail.

You say: "So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail."
This is a false dichotomy.
Mr. Phillips has other options including:

Having a meeting with God and realizing that maybe God doesn't hate gay people.
Changing careers.
Moving to Arizona where there is no provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Start a private club that includes baking services, though this might cost him some licenses and exclude him from opening shop in certain areas, depending on the state and local laws.
Continue his blind obstinacy until the courts shut his business down.​

What's more, there has been no talk of jail time except by news sources trying to stir up support for Mr. Phillips. The fact is that Mr. Phillips is allowed to remain in business and is supposed to give reports as to how he is removing discrimination from his business. It is far more likely that the obstinacy of Mr. Phillips will result in his bakery being stripped of any and all licenses needed to operate a bakery.

So no, the case of Mr. Phillips is not an example of the big bad liberal demanding the good and wholesome Christian conform to the laws of New Sodom or face the wrath of the mob. To be perfectly candid, your attempt to frame this case as such, even if you used softer wording, is not conducive to a constructive discussion.

Your forgot the most simple solution:

Mr. Phillips continues to operate his bakery in the present location but chooses to not provide wedding cakes are part of his business model.​

Since the business does not offer wedding cakes, Mr. Phillips would not be required to supply them to anyone.



>>>>

That is indeed a solution. He sells baked goodies, but no cakes. I just hope a court doesn't force him somehow to start selling cakes again.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You say: "So now public accommodation is forcing Mr. Phillips to chose between abandoning his faith, or going to jail."
This is a false dichotomy.
Mr. Phillips has other options including:

Having a meeting with God and realizing that maybe God doesn't hate gay people.
Changing careers.
Moving to Arizona where there is no provision against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
Start a private club that includes baking services, though this might cost him some licenses and exclude him from opening shop in certain areas, depending on the state and local laws.
Continue his blind obstinacy until the courts shut his business down.​

What's more, there has been no talk of jail time except by news sources trying to stir up support for Mr. Phillips. The fact is that Mr. Phillips is allowed to remain in business and is supposed to give reports as to how he is removing discrimination from his business. It is far more likely that the obstinacy of Mr. Phillips will result in his bakery being stripped of any and all licenses needed to operate a bakery.

So no, the case of Mr. Phillips is not an example of the big bad liberal demanding the good and wholesome Christian conform to the laws of New Sodom or face the wrath of the mob. To be perfectly candid, your attempt to frame this case as such, even if you used softer wording, is not conducive to a constructive discussion.

Your forgot the most simple solution:

Mr. Phillips continues to operate his bakery in the present location but chooses to not provide wedding cakes are part of his business model.​

Since the business does not offer wedding cakes, Mr. Phillips would not be required to supply them to anyone.



>>>>

That is indeed a solution. He sells baked goodies, but no cakes. I just hope a court doesn't force him somehow to start selling cakes again.

He doesn't have to stop selling cakes in general, just wedding cakes.


>>>>

 

[Jughead]

Which, I believe, is the route Mr. Phillips chose. He won't be making any more dog wedding cakes.

True, the whole "abandon his faith or go to jail" meme is false. There are perfectly legal options where neither would happen.


On top of that "Jail" isn't even in the offing:

24-34-602. Penalty and civil liability.

(1) Any person who violates section 24-34-601 shall be fined not less than fifty dollars nor more than five hundred dollars for each violation. A person aggrieved by the violation of section 24-34-601 shall bring an action in any court of competent jurisdiction in the county where the violation occurred. Upon finding a violation, the court shall order the defendant to pay the fine to the aggrieved party.

(2) Repealed.

(3) The relief provided by this section is an alternative to that authorized by section 24-34-306 (9), and a person who seeks redress under this section is not permitted to seek relief from the commission.​

A fine (commission ruling) or pay damages (if it goes to court).

The whole "go to jail" thing is not in the law.




>>>>

He could very well be incarcerated for violating a court order.