Colorado | Denver | Evangelical Christians | Gay Marriage | Gay Marriage Quotes | Video | YouTube

Christian Broadcasting Network Profiles Anti-Gay Colorado Baker Jack Phillips - VIDEO

Jack phillips denver baker

The Christian Broadcasting Network yesterday profiled Jack Phillips, a Denver baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple.

According to the broadcaster, “Jack’s Christian faith landed him in trouble with the law. His crime? Adhering to his biblical belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.”

Phillips, who says that making the cake would violate the Christian principles by which he runs his business, claimed, “I did not discriminate against [the same-sex couple], just that event I chose not to participate in.”

Earlier this month, Phillips appealed an order from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) requiring him to prepare wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

In May, the CCRC rejected his appeal of an earlier ruling that he “unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake” in 2012.

Watch the Christian Broadcasting Network report, AFTER THE JUMP...

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. No, his crime was refusing services to some portion of the public based on his feelings about them, which is illegal under the law. You're free to hate as many people as you want, but sorry, then you can't have a public business. Bye, Felicia.

    Posted by: Tigernan | Jul 30, 2014 12:55:24 PM


  2. cue the tiny violin

    Posted by: woody | Jul 30, 2014 1:05:01 PM


  3. Why do we have to continue to repeat this? If you want to do business with the public you must have a license to do so and you must abide by the laws of the U.S. That means you cannot discriminate against anyone -be they Jewish, Arab, Female, Chinese or Gay, etc. Therefore, you have lost your license to do business and can now bake your little cakes in your home oven for the members of your bigoted faith.

    Posted by: Mike Ryan | Jul 30, 2014 1:06:36 PM


  4. ugghhh.... a jew working a cash register at the supermarket still has to scan the ham. if he won't, he can't work there.

    Posted by: woody | Jul 30, 2014 1:40:25 PM


  5. Although his cakes look tasty, his legal arguments are not. His lawyer says that government is favoring a message but requiring him to bake a cake -- it's actually not. Cakes must be baked for Christians, even if you're a Satanist. I would love to see how this guy would react if he were denied service at a restaurant or bakerty because of his Christianity.

    Posted by: Matt | Jul 30, 2014 1:40:58 PM


  6. He looks like one of the extras on The Walking Dead, and is probably as smart as one of those zombies.

    Posted by: Jack M | Jul 30, 2014 1:44:37 PM


  7. He's a f*cking cook.He seems to have forgotten that.

    Posted by: Esther Blodgett | Jul 30, 2014 1:48:42 PM


  8. I'm a small business owner myself and can't tell you how many clients use the term...
    "I'm a good christian woman". Always a red flag to me. But regardless...do you think I could refuse to provide my services to them based on that statement since christian beliefs are in conflict with my personal belief system? I'm crazy enough to give that a try just to see what happens.

    Posted by: Paul B. | Jul 30, 2014 1:50:51 PM


  9. Why do we have to make such a big deal of these things. I make a point of going to gay friendly establishments, it is just easier and doesn't make us look like a bunc h of militants just lokking for a fight. it isn't like there are enough choices out there for us, and in the end if we influence enough people not to go to places where intolerance, despite not being in keeping with the teachings of Christ, ten they will close. It's not about whether I am willing to fight for my rights, i think we pick our battles more strategically than some little cake baker and then make us look like bullies and intolerant our selves. Turn the other cheek, go find another service and spend your money there. It is his loss and he can live in his deluded world that Chirstianity is about slapping people down with the very principles that should uphold everyone's rights to be treated with charity and love. We just add to the sad part of the world.

    Posted by: david from Edmonton | Jul 30, 2014 1:54:58 PM


  10. DAVID FROM EDMONTON,

    Well said.

    Posted by: Princess Lardass | Jul 30, 2014 2:12:38 PM


  11. they broke the 9th commandment when they listed his crime as "Adhering to his biblical belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.” that's not what it was, at all. not even close.

    we should make a big deal about these things. it's discrimination. shame them. punish them. and then take your business elsewhere.

    think, folks. you're treated badly and with prejudice. yes, you should then go off and support a non-prejudiced business. BUT - don't do it SILENTLY. EVER.

    or else nothing changes.

    i've been "turning the other cheek" since i was a kid. to paraphrase Tim Minchin "if you always take in on the chin and wear it nothing will change. you might as well be saying you think that it's ok"

    hell to the no.

    WOODY, in fact, gets the analogy right.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jul 30, 2014 2:16:43 PM


  12. This whole issue revolves around the "petty insults of daily life". The only real winners will be the lawyers.

    Posted by: anon | Jul 30, 2014 2:42:54 PM


  13. he's a baker running a bakery, not a pastor in a church. he only "screens" for one "sin" he personally finds offensive, instead of screening for all "sinners" of his religion.

    if he also refused liars, adulterers, gossipers, blasphemers, thieves, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc., i *might* have more sympathy to his crisis of "faith". he knows refusing all "sinners" means he'd have zero customers, so by only refusing this one "sin", he is practicing discrimination, bigotry, and breaking the law.

    Posted by: northalabama | Jul 30, 2014 2:48:14 PM


  14. ...Hmmm. This is really a thorny issue. This man runs a small (and seemingly) prosperous business. He works hard, it is clear. He is not a bad person, in my view. But herein lies the tale, IMHO only: Let this man refuse to bake a cake for two men. If I lived there and I knew about his issues, I would NEVER EVER set foot in his establishment. NEVER. Period. He was clearly unconcerned about losing a customer or two and my guess is that the bulk of his custom cakes sale are NOT gay men or women. It would do no good to stage a boycott. He is too insignificant to target for one. Our choice is to never darken his doorway and certainly not buy cookies or muffins that he stated he would be happy to sell to gay people, just not be a part of wedding that he feels is wrong, biblically (although I have yet to find anything in the bible to substantiate his decision) "one man, One woman" Meh. That's what it was then. Don't make it what is now for the sake of the word. After all it is okay now to eat ham and shrimp when Leviticus warned us of a trip to hell if we did ingest the filth of these creatures. Red lobster, CLOSE YOUR DOORS YOU FILTHY sinners! SOUND ludicrous??? mmmm. let this case die in the docket and not waste a court's time.Move on.

    Posted by: thom | Jul 30, 2014 4:03:34 PM


  15. Thom - attitudes like yours are why these things keep occurring. Yes - never darken his doorway again. And make it known why. And let everyone know why. And punish him, as per the law, due to the illegality of discrimination.

    what your permit, you promote.

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jul 30, 2014 4:13:12 PM


  16. @Thom, it's not a thorny issue, and he's the one wasting the court's time because CO law is perfectly clear, and it's already been decided that he's in clear violation of it. Likewise, @David, he's the one making the big deal by refusing to comply with simple state law. You open your doors to the public, you abide by public accommodations law, which, in this case, means not targeting people you disapprove of for exclusion, then trying to use your religious beliefs as an excuse.

    This isn't about cakes or about whether there are other, gay-friendly bakeries in town. It's about the broader, basic principle of whether the religious should get a special pass to discriminate, in defiance of state law, that no one else gets. The answer is No, period.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jul 30, 2014 5:12:55 PM


  17. It seems Mr. Phillips has deep denial or he is a liar! He choose not to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple because it violated his sincerely held religious beliefs. However, he did go into business to sell a product, which made his store a public accommodation that has to obey the law and not cherry pick his customer. If he could not obey the law, then he should not have opened up a store.

    Posted by: Bernie | Jul 30, 2014 5:27:23 PM


  18. @ Ernie : it isn't even about deeply held religious beliefs in any way - when he trotted out his the marriage is between a man and a woman thing, the judge noted that he had no problem baking a wedding cake for some character who was planning a wedding reception after the marriage of two dogs.

    The judge decided his "deeply held beliefs" were merely a transparent excuse.

    Posted by: Bill | Jul 30, 2014 11:42:27 PM


  19. In comes down to, if you have a for profit tax ID then you have to serve ALL or a non-profit tax ID then you don't have to serve ALL. And some people just don't get that when they open for profit business.

    Posted by: Ryan Nix | Jul 31, 2014 8:43:16 AM


  20. Not surprising @Bill. "Deeply held" religious beliefs are often actually deeply held bigotry disguised as religious belief. But the level of sincerity (if it can be accurately judged) of the beliefs is irrelevant, unless we're to grant special passes for anyone with "beliefs" to ignore state law.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jul 31, 2014 10:26:09 AM


Post a comment







Trending


« «Michigan Democrat Adam Zemke Introduces Bill To Ban Gay Conversion Therapy in the State« «