Video: Our Trip to the Masterpiece Cake Shop

Hi from Bangula Malawi East Africa, My wife Pam and I are so thankful for Jack Phillips Godly stand in the face of such ……. And his family what a testimony !!!!  Hey we offer room and board for six months for them to come stay with us at our childrens home (now if someone pays their planefare and they want to come …)   Ha Ha we have stoves and flour… if they get bored hugging children!!!!  What a blessing thankyou for sharing and supporting them. We have gladly forwarded ur message. Always grace and love and a bucket of chuckles… Will n Pam Phillips     tiyamike.com

I really appreciate those who are willing to protect our 1st amendment rights to free practice of religion by going through the sometimes long, expensive and stressful process of the court system. We should all support the Christian legal organizations which are fighting this fight. I think the time has come where we need to be willing to aggressively defend our right (and our children's right) to practice faith. The secular world has a very aggressive agenda right now aimed at blotting out our constitutional right to free practice. The LGBT activist community has been a prime force in that organized attack on religious liberty, although other groups, such as some large corporations, organized atheists, and liberal leaning administrators on college campuses are also active. This is resulting in more and more state and local laws, policies and regulations as well as organizational codes of conduct, which attempt to force Christians to act contrary to faith -- from banning counselors from helping people who want to escape their gay/lesbian lifestyle, to forcing Christian children in school to be indoctrinated with sex education classes which encourage sexual activity, to type-casting employee expressions of faith as "offensive".

If you actually read the Supreme Court decision, one of the main points is that the government should be neutral towards religion. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was not neutral when it decided that an "anti-gay marriage" message was "offensive" but failed to acknowledge that a "pro-gay marriage" message is also offensive -- to those who serve Christ. Why is it offensive? To me, it's because "gay marriage" blasphemes the image of God as reflected in the male and femaleness of the marriage union.

As for Gail Corrado's comments below, that "love is love", and therefore we should all support gay marriage -- Just wanted to say that it took Jesus' life and death to show what love really is. One of America's biggest problems is that people have all kind of wrong ideas about what love is. Two men (or women) deciding to engage in mutual sexual pleasure for which the body was not designed, which has no potential to result in conception of children, being proud of the same, and demanding that every individual approve or be threatened, sued or bullied if they don't -- that is not the same thing as love. Jesus died to change the heart that erringly sees such behavior as love.

Susan Enyart 5 months ago I couldn't have said it better myself! Right on Sister, You Speak the Truth with Love ! Thank You !

It's very simple.  If this baker cannot follow anti-discrimination law, he's not fit to run a public business.  Relgious people don't get special rights to discriminate against other Americans -- they have to follow the law like everyone else. 

And, no, selling a cake is not participating in a wedding.  Did anyone here send a wedding invitation to their caterer? 

Jennifer Razzouk 5 months ago Hi there. I think what’s at stake is freedom of choice, for any person,  religious or not. Freedom to choose who we speak to, vote for, or who we marry. When those boundaries are breached whether it is in the public sector or private, we lose self. You should be able to tell me no on any subject to keep you your self identity in tact. I should be able to do the same. Maybe the the law is wrong.

Linda Cebrian 5 months ago I disagree. A business is still a private enterprise. Even though it may be open to the public, that does not guarantee that services ought to be rendered.   It's time for Big Sodomy to start practicing tolerance of their own rather than purpose to make an example of bakers, florists, photographers, printers, etc. who don't care to give tacit approval to homosexuality.   Suppose a customer went into a print shop and wanted to order T-shirts with "Straight Pride" emblazoned on the front for a demonstration in support of traditional marriage. The owner of the print shop turns down the order since he is homosexual and would feel conflicted working on such as assignment. Should the weight of government be sicced on him, too?

Kris Collino 5 months ago That all sounds good until a radical muslim or Nazi shows up to ask an LBGTQ baker to design a cake that says something they strongly oppose or is against their own religious beliefs. I would hope they'd have the freedom to refer them out.

[removed] 5 months ago This comment has been deleted Walter Lutes 5 months ago Noone should be discriminated against. Hopefully one day he will have the strength to stand behind what he believes and not hide, but we will still love him and Jesus still loves him.

NPoling 5 months ago He serves everyone with his generic baked goods, however he has freedom to reject messages on cakes.  Supreme Court of the land overwhelmingly agreed.

Kelly Nealis 5 months ago The gay couple cannot bully or force anyone to participate in their wedding against sincerely held religious beliefs. No one, not the gay couple and certainly not the government, can compel speech or actions.  This is what the first amendment is all about.  Unless you would rather live in a communist or fascist country, where the government tells you how to think and act, and forces this on you.  This is what the gay couple were hoping for, to use the government as a weapon. Good thing for ALL Americans that the supreme court ruled correctly in this case.   Good for Jack Phillips for standing up for his first amendment rights, and good for our supreme court for not allowing the government to interfere where it has no authority, and for rightly condemning Colorado's courts for hostility towards religion. Good day for America!

Anonymous 5 months ago Oh go home. This was never an issue in the 1st place until the stupid decade came along & the worst decade I've seen at that. I guess things are looking up now that you know who is out of power.

Anonymous 5 months ago How is this any different from the gay NM hairdresser who refused to cut the conservative Governor's hair because of her conservative views? Either both should be forced to serve or both should be free to refuse service. Freedom is the better option. The cake baker wouldn't be participating in the "wedding" ceremony, but would in fact be participating in the reception celebration of this "wedding" by providing the wedding cake. This is considered endorsement. Consider the advertising some businesses use, "Let us help you celebrate your special day.". When George Bush Sr. was an official witness at a "same-sex wedding" it was considered by many as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, even though he had previously opposed it during his political career. Attendance is even considered endorsement. The end goal of some is affirmation and endorsement for same-sex marriage by all, whether by choice or force. That is not tolerant and that is not freedom. I'm glad that not everyone supports that goal, regardless of his/her personal views.

Anonymous 5 months ago Refusing to design clothing for the First Lady  No Shirt, No Shoes, No Service  No Outside Food/Beverages allowed  Restroom for Paying Customers Only  ...plus many others at the discretion of the shop owners of whom the government did not give the money to fund nor put in an ounce of work to get going.  God Bless America, it's freedoms, and the privilege to be a small business owner making decisions which honor the Lord from whom *everything* - all resources, gifts, talents, and the land upon which we live comes from.

acts4him 5 months ago When the VOTERS  are given the chance to decide on these so-called "laws", then we will begin to consider them valid. Most are the result of commissions or committees and not representative of the constituency, knowing that they would never pass, unlike REAL "rights" issues. Protections from abuse, I understand. Targeting of non-essential services is ridiculous. Case in point the ones who are coming against a true law that is about to take effect, I wish I could remember the context, but again it is some artist or other business owner whose "business" would be in jeopardy, i.e. Targeted.