The True Identity Of Gay Couple In SCOTUS Cakeshop Case — They’re Not Who Everyone Thinks

0
9

This week, the true identity of the couple involved in the Supreme Court cakeshop case was exposed. These men are not who everyone thinks.

Jack Phillips stands for a portrait near a display of wedding cakes in his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, on Thursday, September 1, 2016 (left); David Mullins and Charlie Craig wait to speak to journalists after the U.S. Supreme Court heard the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on December 5, 2017, in Washington, D.C. (right) (Photo Credit: Matthew Staver/The Washington Post/Getty Images, Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images News/Getty Images)

The controversy first started when Lakewood, Colorado, baker Jack Phillips refused to provide a cake for a same-sex wedding, as the ceremony would be in direct conflict with his Christian faith.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which held that Phillips had violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). Phillips responded by saying that applying CADA to make him use his artistic talents to bake a cake for same-sex couples violated his constitutional rights to free speech and religious conscience. [Source: The Washington Post]

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court heard oral argument in the famed case. The same day, conservative writer Matt Walsh revealed the true identities of the gay couple who has raised such a stink, rather than simply finding another cake shop to fill their wedding day needs.

According to Walsh, the gay couple in the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case are vindictive bullies, not victims.

“The First Amendment is on trial, not Jack Phillips,” writes Walsh. “If Phillips loses, free speech is effectively finished in this country. If a Christian business owner can be forced by the state to create something that goes against his deeply held religious beliefs — beliefs shared by a majority of the world, by the way — then what function does the First Amendment really serve?” he asked.

“Phillips doesn’t need the First Amendment when he makes a birthday cake,” continued Walsh. “He doesn’t need it when he cooks a batch of brownies. He doesn’t need it when he’s doing innocuous things that no one — not even the gay lobby — could possibly find offensive or upsetting,” he added.

“He needs it precisely when he’s faced with the dilemma that Mullins and Craig presented,” Walsh writes. “He needs it when he makes a decision, grounded in his religious convictions, which will be upsetting to a powerful group like the LGBT lobby. If he doesn’t have it then, he doesn’t have it at all,” he explained.

“If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the gay lobby, what next?” Walsh asked. “If gays have a mystical right to force their fellow citizens to participate in their gay weddings, where does that right end? I’ll tell you: it doesn’t,” Walsh boldly declared.

“If Phillips goes down, the churches will be next,” he adds. “And why not? If we’ve just established that gays are a special and superior class of human beings, and their desire for a cake decorated a particular way now must supersede everyone else’s First Amendment rights, why should the churches be exempt?” he asked rhetorically.

“Indeed, if Phillips doesn’t have the right to withhold his cake, why should the local priest have the right to withhold his church?” asks Walsh. “He doesn’t, in that case. He won’t. Mark my words,” Walsh warned.

Walsh adds that “LGBT rights don’t exist,” explaining, “Your gayness does not come with special rights and privileges. Your sexual proclivities have no bearing on anything. We all have the same rights, or we should. That’s what ‘equal protection’ means.” Indeed, equal would apply to all, not special rights based on who you choose to have sex with.

“Phillips is not claiming any special rights,” Walsh writes. “He is simply saying that he, like anyone, is entitled to use his artistic abilities in a way consistent with his personal and religious convictions. He doesn’t want to advance a message he doesn’t believe. It is his fundamental human right — not his Christian right, or his baker’s right, or any other kind of right — to refrain,” he further explains.

To the contrary, Mullins and Craig “are saying that a special exception must be made for them, specifically, because they’re gay,” Walsh points out. “Notice how nobody is challenging (for now) Phillips’ right to continue turning down Halloween cakes and divorce cakes and lewd bachelorette party cakes, etc,” he also notes.

“Mullins and Craig are arguing that their situation is different because they’re gay,” he goes on. “Whereas a man’s love for Halloween does not entitle him to special privileges and protections, a man’s sexual attraction to other men does. That’s the argument. It’s deranged, arbitrary, and un-American.”

The Supreme Court may very well be deciding the future of the Christian church in our country at this time. Pray that they make the right decision, and share this report so that others will know the truth about the gay couple responsible for this abomination.

SHARE the story and leave a comment by clicking one of the buttons below. FOLLOW us on Facebook at Mad World News!



Source by [author_name]