Some Baking Is Art – Maybe

Some Baking Is Art – Maybe

The Supreme Court on Monday handed a narrow victory to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. In doing so, the commission violated his religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.  – CNBC

[ Bonus Wisdom ]

Of course, the Supreme Court ruled forcing someone to design a cake with a specific message is wrong if the government is being mean about it.  As is normal the Court left wide open the door to oppression. So King County Prosecutors, as Dan Satterberg likes to say, are “happy” to do what it is they decide they want to do and damn be lawfulness.

Indeed, these lawsuits and lynch-mob prosecutions are not always designed to win, but to oppress. 

Don’t get too excited about the Supreme Court cake case as the open hostility from the likes of King County Prosecutors in Seattle Washington will sanction hate crimes against Christian churches they oppose.

Indeed King County Prosecutors will continue to inflame oppression by twisting legal code to fit their opposition upon ideologies they despise and are too ignorant to understand.

Contact King County Prosecutor Dan Satterberg if there is a Christian you hate because he has willing partners eager to invent accusations against preachers that demand a holy life. [see]

…who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men (1 Thessalonians 2:15)

Opinion Unto Righteousness / Proverbs 18:2 / Timothy Williams
Concept of

Monday, June 4, 2018 8:03 AM

Article Reference

(—The Court in this case chose to rule only on the last question. And even there, they didn’t answer whether a law of neutral applicability could force a baker to bake a same-sex marriage cake. They merely stated that the Colorado commission had not applied its rules in neutral fashion. Here’s addlepated Justice Kennedy:

The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided….The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts…

So presumably, if the Colorado commission had said nicely to Phillips, “Dear sir, we understand your honestly-felt moral quandary, but feel that times have moved beyond such discrimination, and thus your religious objections must take a back seat to civility,” they could tell him to do whatever they damn well pleased.

The fact that we have arrived at this point in Constitutional jurisprudence in the first place is an utter joke. You don’t have the freedom to speak, so long as the government labels your speech public accommodation; you don’t have the freedom to associate; you don’t have freedom of religion so long as the government speaks nicely while taking it away from you – or at least, that’s the next step in the line of cases Kennedy would surely endorse. – The Wire