DebateGate

DENVER (AP) -- The Colorado Supreme Court on Monday declined to take up the case of a suburban Denver baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, letting stand a previous ruling that the Masterpiece Cakeshop owner must provide service despite his Christian beliefs.

Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who were refused service by baker Jack Phillips in 2012, applauded the development.

Craig said they persisted with the case throughout a complicated legal process because they felt it was important to set the precedent that discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation was not only wrong but illegal.

"We didn't want anyone to have to go through what we did," Craig said.

Attorney Nicolle Martin, who represents Phillips, said they had not yet decided whether to ask Colorado's highest court to reconsider, or approach the U.S. Supreme Court. Martin says she is surprised the Colorado court would not consider the case.

"This is a matter that affects all Americans, not just people of faith," Martin said.

The seven-member Colorado Supreme Court said in a brief announcement that it decided as a group not to take up the case.

However, Chief Justice Nancy E. Rice and Justice Nathan B. Coats would have considered hearing arguments in several areas, including whether applying Colorado's anti-discrimination law to force Phillips to "create artistic expression" in the form of a wedding cake violated his constitutional free speech rights.

Phillips declined to make a cake for Craig and Mullins, who were married in Massachusetts and planned a celebration in Colorado. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in December 2013 that Phillips discriminated against them and ordered him to change his store policy against making cakes for gay weddings or face fines. The Colorado Court of Appeals also ruled against him.

Phillips referred questions from The Associated Press to his lawyer Monday. He previously said he has no problem serving gay people at his store, but that making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his Christian beliefs.

Such issues have been considered by courts and legislators across the country.

A new North Carolina law prevents local and state government from mandating protections for LGBT people in the private sector or at stores and restaurants. The law suffered a blow when a federal appeals court issued an opinion that threatens part of the law requiring students to use bathrooms in line with their gender at birth in public schools and universities.

Colorado lawmakers introduced a bill in February that would have blocked the state from taking any action that may burden a person's religious freedom unless it was the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling governmental interest. A House committee indefinitely postponed discussion on the bill.

Mullins, part of the Colorado couple denied a wedding cake, said he saw moves like the North Carolina legislature's as exceptions.

"We really feel like America is moving in the direction of accepting LGBT people," Mullins told the AP.

Depends on who you ask, and the religion involved.  IIRC, at no time has the Christian God ever been referred to in the plural.  That includes biblical scripture

Check òut Genesis.

I was.

Question: "Did Jesus come only for the Jews and not the Gentiles?"

Answer: Jesus is the Messiah that the Jews had been anticipating for centuries (see Luke 2:25; 3:15). As such, He was born into a Jewish family and was reared according to Jewish law in a Jewish town (see Luke 2:27; Galatians 4:4). Jesus selected Jewish disciples, spoke in Jewish synagogues and the Jewish temple, and traveled mostly in Jewish areas. His mission, in fulfillment of the Jewish prophets, was to the Jewish people. However, none of this means that Jesus’ ministry was limited exclusively to the Jews.

In Matthew 15, there is an incident that, at first, seems to confirm the idea that Jesus came only for the Jews. Jesus was traveling through Tyre and Sidon, a Gentile region, and “a Canaanite woman from that vicinity came to him, crying out, ‘Lord, Son of David, have mercy on me! My daughter is demon-possessed and suffering terribly’” (Matthew 15:22). This Gentile woman recognized Jesus as the Messiah (“Son of David”), but “Jesus did not answer a word” (verse 23). As the woman kept up her appeals, Jesus finally responded, but His words seemed to hold little hope: “I was sent only to the lost sheep of Israel” (verse 24). However, the woman did not give up, and Jesus eventually granted her request, based on her “great faith” (verse 28).

The fact that Jesus helped the Canaanite woman, even though His mission was to the Jews, is a significant detail in the Gospel narrative. Throughout His earthly ministry, Jesus gave other indications that His power and compassion reached to all people. He healed a Roman centurion’s servant (Luke 7:1–10). He traveled through the Gentile region of the Gerasenes (Mark 5:1). He ministered in a Samaritan city (John 4).

Jesus came to save everybody (1 John 2:2). Jesus Christ is God Himself (John 1:1). Jesus died on the cross as the payment for all our sins, and He rose from death in resurrection (1 Corinthians 15:3–4). Jesus said He was the Good Shepherd, and He predicted that His flock would be greatly expanded: “I have other sheep that are not of this sheep pen. I must bring them also. They too will listen to my voice, and there shall be one flock and one shepherd” (John 10:16).

It took a while for the early church to recognize that salvation was available to the Gentiles. The Jewish Christians who fled the persecution in Jerusalem went into the Gentile regions of Phoenicia, Cyprus and Antioch, but they were “spreading the word only among Jews” (Acts 11:19). Peter was hesitant to bring the gospel to a Gentile household, but God made it plain that Cornelius was also one of the elect (Acts 10).

“Is God the God of Jews only? Is he not the God of Gentiles too? Yes, of Gentiles too” (Romans 3:29). Jesus was the Jewish Messiah, but He had come to offer salvation to everybody. The Messiah was to be a “light for the Gentiles” (Isaiah 42:6). So call on Jesus, because “everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved” (Acts 2:21).

Recommended Resources: Our Father Abraham: Jewish Roots of the Christian Faith by Marvin Wilson and Logos Bible Software.

http://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-Jews-only.html

What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?
BY ANN NAFFZIGER DECEMBER 9, 2011

(CNS photo courtesy Catholic Communication Campaign)
If you were to read all four gospels thoroughly in search of Jesus’ teachings on homosexuality it would be a futile endeavor. Not only would you come to the end of the gospels without finding anything attributed to Jesus on the subject, you wouldn’t even find a single reference to the issue in any context.
In fact, there are only a handful of references to homosexuality in the entire Bible, but they are found in the Old Testament and Paul’s writings. (To put it in perspective, while there are only seven references to homosexuality, there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of references to economic justice and the laws governing the accumulation and distribution of wealth.)

Jesus’ silence on the subject suggests that an issue which can be controversial and/or fraught with emotion these days was simply not a central issue in his lifetime 2,000 years ago in the land of Palestine. The fact that he didn’t address this issue leaves us all to ponder what he might say were he here today.

http://bustedhalo.com/ministry-resources/what-did-jesus-have-to-say-about-homosexuality

Jesus himself did not refuse sinners

Luke 15:1-2 ESV

Now the tax collectors and sinners were all drawing near to hear him. And the Pharisees and the scribes grumbled, saying, “This man receives sinners and eats with them.”

https://www.openbible.info/topics/sinners

So, who are the hypocrites here?

Springsteen et al are not refusing to play concerts for crowds (or provide services or jobs) that are specifically conservative, anti-LGBT, or any one specific belief. So when they don't perform, it affects people of ALL beliefs, even those that support their own cause. If they screened fans and only allowed you in if you were personally LGBT or supported their cause, then the comparison to some so-called Christian who refused service only to those he disagreed with would be more appropriate.

Economic boycott such as this has long been used in the US.

You mean, with all those self-made billions, The Donald can't afford a few bucks to pay off - um, somebody?

I believe it went on in Canada up until the 1960's.