Looks like their at it again in Colorado

**Laxdad24** · 12-20-2018, 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by NCRAVEN

HEY! You accept us or we'll force you to!

And we’ll take your damn guns and trucks too you damn bigoted ,redneck Christian!!

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**RavensPPark** · 12-20-2018, 12:44 PM

Originally Posted by ravenmaniac4life

The transgender people are trying to sue the guy for the same thing that he was sued for before? Why do you think they're doing this? Why should they give 2 shits about a Christian baker who didn't want to bake them a cake in 2017? What's the point?

Did you read what I wrote or the link I provided?

The "transgender people" aren't suing anyone. The baker is suing the State of CO to enjoin a government order.

I'm not going to speak for the actions of the person who ordered the cake. I'm also going to say that I have some sympathy for the baker. But above all, please understand the facts of the case.

The baker has taken a principled stand. That's what people do in America. Now we have to find out whether it is or is not legal.

**Laxdad24** · 12-20-2018, 12:58 PM

Originally Posted by RavensPPark

Did you read what I wrote or the link I provided?

The "transgender people" aren't suing anyone. The baker is suing the State of CO to enjoin a government order.

I'm not going to speak for the actions of the person who ordered the cake. I'm also going to say that I have some sympathy for the baker. But above all, please understand the facts of the case.

The baker has taken a principled stand. That's what people do in America. Now we have to find out whether it is or is not legal.

The transgender person is taking the baker to court. It’s a new case that just recently happened. It was for “his” coming out party. And he ( the Baker ) refused to make it. They describe it in the USA Today article.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**ravenmaniac4life** · 12-20-2018, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by RavensPPark

Did you read what I wrote or the link I provided?

The "transgender people" aren't suing anyone. The baker is suing the State of CO to enjoin a government order.

I'm not going to speak for the actions of the person who ordered the cake. I'm also going to say that I have some sympathy for the baker. But above all, please understand the facts of the case.

The baker has taken a principled stand. That's what people do in America. Now we have to find out whether it is or is not legal.

The USA Today article said the transgender is taking him to court... We can argue over semantics all day (suing vs taking to court) and not get anywhere in the discussion.

The transgender called Phillip's bakery and asked for a cake celebrating her "transition" and is taking the baker to court and accusing him of more LGBT discrimination which will bring more negative attention to the poor guy's business and put him out more legal costs.

The transgender made this call on June 26, 2017 which happens to be the same day SCOTUS granted cert to the bakery's case. Since the transgender is a lawyer...you can't tell me she didn't know exactly what she was doing. She's provoking another legal controversy and pushing her political agenda for no other reason than..."if you don't agree with me, I will make you suffer."

**blah3** · 12-20-2018, 01:04 PM

Originally Posted by RavensPPark

Here are a couple of facts. Might want to read this for further information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master...hts_Commission

(1) The incident at issue occurred in 2017, well before SCOTUS issued its decision in the same-sex case and after the CO Court of Appeals had upheld the original action. So no, this isn't about people who are trying to make people suffer after the bakery "won its case."

(2) Note that the SCOTUS decision did not rule on Masterpiece Cakeshop's main claim - whether the CO anti-discrimination law interfered with the baker's freedom to practice his religion. SCOTUS found that the CO Civil Rights Commission did not act "neutrally."

(3) Masterpiece Cakeshop is suing the State of CO because after the 2017 incident, another complaint was filed with the CO Division of Civil Rights, who ordered the parties into compulsory mediation. The baker is suing the State to seek a permanent injunction against enforcing that order - i.e., prevent it from occurring - and damages.

(4) I will note that the baker is claiming that as a Christian, he believes that "one does not get to choose their {sic} gender." While again not choosing to get into the basis of this belief, I'm only noting this because this is a different claim that was in the original ruling and it will be interesting to see whether this will make any difference in the eventual ruling.

Couple of comments here.
First, while the SC had not yet ruled, the case had clearly gotten significant attention and was known to be going through the court system. So the person CLEARLY was pushing an agenda by going to this bakery.

As for the baker suing the state. There would be no need for this if people were not going after the baker in court. So in reality the baker is not the one who is continuing to push this in court. He's simply using the legal court system to protect himself.

**RavensPPark** · 12-20-2018, 06:04 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

Couple of comments here.
First, while the SC had not yet ruled, the case had clearly gotten significant attention and was known to be going through the court system. So the person CLEARLY was pushing an agenda by going to this bakery.

As for the baker suing the state. There would be no need for this if people were not going after the baker in court. So in reality the baker is not the one who is continuing to push this in court. He's simply using the legal court system to protect himself.

Yes, I said that I'm not speaking for the person who filed the complaint (who, if I understand correctly, instigated the incident on the day SCOTUS was hearing the case).

But when you say, "if people were going after the baker in court." That's not correct. There's an administrative order issued by the State that the Baker is attempting to overturn. There are no "people" going after the baker (as the earlier posters were trying to say).

**blah3** · 12-21-2018, 09:11 AM

Originally Posted by RavensPPark

Yes, I said that I'm not speaking for the person who filed the complaint (who, if I understand correctly, instigated the incident on the day SCOTUS was hearing the case).

But when you say, "if people were going after the baker in court." That's not correct. There's an administrative order issued by the State that the Baker is attempting to overturn. There are no "people" going after the baker (as the earlier posters were trying to say).

OK, I think we can all agree that the article is terribly written.

But what I digest from it is that the State is going after the baker again, BECAUSE of a complaint from a transgendered person. No complaint by this person clearly pushing an agenda, then no courts involved. The transgender activist is the one responsible for all the court issues no matter how you want to slice the semantics of it (State suing the baker, baker suing the State, transgendered suing baker)

**darb72** · 12-21-2018, 08:12 PM

The activist has also tried to get Phillips to make a cake with satanic imagery, and one with a working vibrator.

**Don Frye's Moustache** · 12-25-2018, 09:42 AM

Here is a better summary of what occurred.

It is a planned out stunt. Some people are simply miserable human beings. Tolerance is not enough; they are so insecure in who they are they need others to justify and endorse their confused identities.

https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-ba...create-1077250

Merry Christmas all.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

**NCRAVEN** · 12-26-2018, 09:56 AM

Originally Posted by Don Frye's Moustache

Here is a better summary of what occurred.

It is a planned out stunt. Some people are simply miserable human beings. Tolerance is not enough; they are so insecure in who they are they need others to justify and endorse their confused identities.

https://www.newsweek.com/colorado-ba...create-1077250

Merry Christmas all.

Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk

Boom! Case closed.