Colorado Violating 1st & 5th Amendment Rights Of Christian Baker After SCOTUS Ruling
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a resentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. – Fifth Amendment, The Constitution for the united States of America.
This one amendment contains several components that protect individuals from being railroaded by government – scenarios that plagued the colonies under the tyranny of King George III. One, in particular, is the prohibition of government to hold someone accountable for the same offense twice jeopardizing that person’s life or limb or more aptly termed “the double jeopardy clause.” But, this clause may not be as protective as one might think, particularly if you are a Christian baker in the State of Colorado. Why? It seems that the members of the Civil Rights Commission panel have been replaced; therefore, the State is arguing in federal court, despite the Supreme Court ruling in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, it can bring new charges of discrimination against the Christian baker. Moreover, the State is seeking to continue the attack on Mr. Phillips’ freedom of religion and his free exercise of his religion.
While it may be true that Mr. Phillips does not stand to lose his life because of the State commissions’ renewal of the attack on his practice of religion while operating his business – which he is free to do, the commission is seeking to deprive him of freedom and livelihood after his case has been afforded full due process all the way to the Supreme Court. In essence, the State is holding Mr. Phillips accountable for the same offense once again.
The state of Colorado is arguing in federal court that, despite the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent ruling, its Civil Rights Commission can issue new discrimination charges against Christian baker Jack Phillips, because the panel’s members have been replaced.
The commission found that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to bake a cake for their wedding. The Supreme Court reversed the decision in a 7-2 ruling in June on narrow grounds, concluding the commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips’ rights to free exercise of religion.
Now, the state is issuing new charges against Phillips for refusing to create a cake celebrating a “gender transition,” ignoring evidence that Phillips accepts all customers while refusing to create messages that violate his religious beliefs.
Phillips has responded with a lawsuit contending his constitutional rights have been violated.
A Colorado congressman has asked the Department of Justice to investigate the state commission.
The state’s second prosecution of Phillips prompted James Dobson, the noted Christian psychologist and founder of the Dr. James Dobson Family Institute, to call for reform of the commission, decrying the new claim as “a continued attack on the First Amendment and religious freedom.”
Rep. Doug Lamborn, R-Colo., has asked U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions to intervene.
The commission has moved their original stance from “homosexual/sodomite marriage” to “gender transition.” But, it remains the same offense – the commission punishing Mr. Phillips for holding to his religious beliefs which the Supreme Court held the State violated Mr. Phillips’ right to free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court may have upheld Mr. Phillips’ rights on narrow ground, but it affirmed those rights. The State has appeared a sore loser since once again, it is refusing to apply religious neutrality.
“Both Mr. Phillips and Masterpiece serve everyone. All people – no matter who they are, what they believe or what protected class they belong to – are welcome in Mr. Phillips’ shop and may purchase anything available for sale,” the congressman argued. “But as a devout Christian, Mr. Phillips cannot create custom cakes the express messages or that celebrate events in conflict with his deeply held religious beliefs.
“We are a stronger as a nation because of the societal contribution of religious Americans like Jack Phillips. Mr. Phillips and other creative professionals should not be targeted by the government for living consistently with their deeply held beliefs just because an agency director or the government doesn’t like those beliefs.”
In the previous case, Colorado was scolded by the Supreme Court for “hostility” toward Christians and toward Phillips.
But Colorado officials now are asking the court to dismiss Phillips’ claims against them, arguing that since the old members of the commission are gone, the new ones have a restored authority to prosecute Phillips.
The state argued the complaint “does not allege that any commissioner who is named as a defendant here was also serving as a commissioner when the commission finally decided the 2012 discrimination charge and defended that decision in the Masterpiece I appeals.”
Phillips’ lawsuit cites the fact that the commission refused to prosecute several homosexual bakers who were given permission to refuse to create a cake with a Bible message that violated their beliefs.
But the state says those decisions also were made by previous commissioners, so it should have no ramification on the state’s current prosecution of Phillips.
The civil rights commission insisted it has immunity to claims for damages.
The commission claims it can order people to violate their faith through its orders to ban “discrimination in all places of public accommodation.”
The State’s argument is flimsy at best. It rests on the tenet that because the members of the commission have changed and the new members were not named as defendants in the previous case, the commission has the authority to re-charge Mr. Phillips and prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law. All the while, it claims the civil rights commission is immune from claims for damages and possesses the authority to “order” people to violate their faith for the “greater good” of eliminating discrimination in public places.
This is example of tyranny and despotism at its finest. When claiming authority to order one to violate their religious beliefs and be immune from damage claims, it suggests the “use of force” through either legal or physical means by the State against those who refuse to obey its edicts. The State of Colorado is saying, “Do what we want you to do or we will break you through the system.”
The new case brought against Phillips by the State of Colorado commission followed on the heels of the sodomite case in 2014.
The state investigated Phillips in 2014 after he refused to make a same-sex duo’s wedding cake. The second prosecution came after lawyer Autumn Scardina, a man who says he is a woman, demanded of Phillips a cake celebrating transgenderism.
Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been working on Phillips’ behalf, said, the state “is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs.”
“Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him – something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do.”
According to WND, the commission has refused to acknowledge that Phillips’ Masterpiece Cake Shop serves all individuals, which Mr. Phillips’ has repeatedly stated while maintaining his God-given individual unalienable right to free exercise of his religion. Furthermore, the commission determined that “products”, goods which all people are required to have access, is equal to “messages”, “which are protected by the First Amendment.”
As Phillips has claimed, Colorado does not hold homosexual bakers to the same standard, meaning those bakers are not required to create a cake containing biblical messages because it doesn’t hold to “their beliefs.” This is more than apples and oranges; this is apples and prickly pears. What “religion” or belief systems do homosexuals stand upon when refusing to create a cake with a biblical message? There is none – only a support of mental illness as a normal. The same for those individuals claiming to be the opposite sex when their DNA proves otherwise.
Would the Colorado commission hold Muslim bakers to the same standard as Mr. Phillips? While not specifically in the State of Colorado, this YouTube video by Steven Crowder says it all. Take a look at the response received by Theodore Shoebat when asking for a cake with the message, “gay marriage is wrong.” Granted, these videos are several years old, but it seems the issue is still pertinent and ongoing on the part of the State of Colorado even after the Supreme Court has ruled.
And, the issue is not limited to religion. Onan Coca reported on a case in Georgia in 2015 where a court sided with the KKK against a baker that refused to provide a cake celebrating the birthday of the KKK. It isn’t just Muslims or homosexuals that are receiving protection by the government. It’s racist organizations as well. For those who reject racism and the beliefs held by the KKK, which are against God’s word, the protection of their God-given individual unalienable rights by the government are nil.
When the government can force you to work or do something against your will, it is engaging in a form of slavery – a violation of the Thirteenth Amendment.
Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude (meaning working for someone else against your will), except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the united States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. – Thirteenth Amendment, The Constitution for the united States of America.
Exercising one’s religious beliefs, freedom of speech, right to peaceably assemble, and right to petition government to redress grievances are not crimes. These are rights recognized, guaranteed and protected by the First Amendment. While States have created laws against libel, slander and yelling “fire” in a crowded public space falsely, States have not infringed upon the basic God-given individual unalienable rights protected by the First Amendment, until it became unpopular with those ideologues in government to protect Christianity and the speech of those who advocate for freedom.
It should not escape notice that the sodomites and this mentally ill lawyer did not go quietly away and choose another bakery – something most individuals with any common sense and decency would do recognizing the freedom of association each possesses, even in business. Remember, a privately owned business is free to provide services to whomever it chooses, regardless. If consumers do not like the policy of the business owner, they are free to choose to patron another business. Too much lost business will result in the owner changing the policy or going out of business. These individuals, instead, turned to the government in order to “force” a business to comply with their requests. And, in the case of the mentally ill attorney, he had to know of the previous litigation against Masterpiece Cake Shop, but chose to walk into the bakery and ask for something he knew would be against Phillips’ religious beliefs. This is targeting Phillips for his religious beliefs and using the government to “punish” Phillips for his free exercise thereof.
This mentally ill attorney could have chosen another bakery, but didn’t. His choice was calculated, intentional and malicious, designed for the purpose of rehashing an issue the Supreme Court adjudicated in Phillips’ favor. Funny, he didn’t target a Muslim bakery. Why? In the hierarchy of protecting individual rights crafted by government ideologues, Muslims deserve protection before sodomites and mentally ill gender twisted individuals. Christians, at this point in time, are the low man on the totem pole. Phillips was an easy target.
It’s a travesty in this republic when less than one percent of the population can influence government to trample upon basic God-given individual unalienable rights. It’s the worst travesty when the people elect officials beholden to ideology instead of the Constitution or elect officials who appoint individuals beholden to ideology instead of the Constitution. This has been happening for decades and looks to get worse unless good people rise up to call evil what it is, evil. Until then, this republic may experience the old adage, “it is darkest before the dawn.”
Article posted with permission from Freedom Outpost. Article by Suzanne Hamner