ET Williams

The Doctor of Common Sense

LGBTQ

by

The Doctor Of Common Sense Now Identifies As A 10 Year Old Asian Girl?

I want to put this mental insanity to the test. Because people say that you can Identify based on whatever your truth is.

So are you really saying that a 56 year black man can call himself an Asian 10 year old girl?

https://rumble.com/v15151r-the-doctor-of-common-sense-identifies-as-a-10-year-old-asian-girl.html

Society has gone completely mad in hopes of being non-offensive. In hopes of being politically correct, they are asking you to lose your brain, or park it permanently in another dimension. Because if you are saying that I can identify has a 10 Asian girl.

What you are really saying, is that words don’t have meaning.

And if words do not have meaning how are we suppose to communicate? Who decided, who can change the meaning of words? And once we locate the committee that makes up the rules. Can we get their manifesto, and how often that manifesto will change?

I would also like to know, who picked this committee to be in charge of what words can be changed to?

Because not only am I a 10 year old asian girl, but I’m the long lost child of Bruce Lee.

How can you question me, if I declare that it is my truth? Why can’t I be Bruce Lee’s 10 year old Asian daughter.

Someone may say didn’t Bruce Lee die in 1973? What difference does that make?
Now you want to be logical? What difference does it make if he died in 1973, I was an asian girl then, and I’m still a 10 year old asian girl now.

If truth is subjective, and words can be changed. How can you question a 56 year old Black man who identifies as a 10 year old asian girl?

Either you are a racist or you are transphobic

Stop misgendering me telling me I’m not a 10 year old asian girl. Because I have always known that I was a 10 year old asian girl. I will never stop being a 10 year old asian girl.

Even when I have a birthday, I will still be a 10 year old Asian girl.

So my question is how far are we willing to travel down this road of madness?

It was George Orwell that said ‘Being in a minority, even in a minority of one, did not make you mad. There was truth and there was untruth, and if you clung to the truth even against the whole world, you were not mad.’

I am fully convinced that the world we live in has gone completely mad. Facts no longer matter, and the sad part is I see liberals quoting George Orwell as if they are correct.

They have gone so far into this abyss of “Wokeness” that they feel that they are right.

In the bold face of lies they cling to lunacy while claiming you are crazy.

Hell, it is enough to drive a sane person insane.

The beautiful thing about truth is that it is like the king of the jungle. It does not need a bodyguard. It simply needs to be turned loose. It can defend itself.

But lies need a bodyguard. Lies need spies, assassins, and a propaganda minister. Because lies can not defend themselves in the presence of truth.

Yet here we are with total madness. If I get a wig and put my hair in ponytails. Will that cement me being an asian 10 year old girl?

If I had said something like this 30 or 40 years ago, they would have sent me away.

But if I go and join the alphabet organization. And act very passionate about my mental illness.

If I come on TV and cry about my mental illness, and pretend that I’m being bullied.

Because others refuse to play “house” with me, and my mentally disturbed friends. Then I can claim to rewrite the English language and say my pronouns are they, and it.

Then I can say that I have located my true person. And if anyone disagrees with me, then they need to be ban off Social Media Platforms. Because they are spreading disinformation.

Does that sound about how far we fallen off the cliff of sanity? Girls can be boys, and boys can be girls. And one singular person can be a they.

And we are wondering while so many people are dying from drug overdose, and suicide. Society is driving the crazy train. And they are telling us to get on the crazy train.

The crazy train is going full speed down the track, and pretty soon the train will run out of track.

And when the train runs out of track. The drop is about a 1000 feet into steel pointy objects.

And they are attempting to force you on the crazy train. You say the train is going to crash. They say don’t judge me.

They insist if you do not get on the cray, cray train, they will destroy you. They don’t seem to care that they are destroying themselves.

But they want to destroy as many lives as possible.I say no thank you I don’t want to ride on your crazy train.

Go sell crazy somewhere else we are all filled up here with crazy.

By: The Doctor Of Common Sense

by

Joe Biden’s Declares War on Women: Equality Act Would End Legal Recognition of Biological Sex

President Joe Biden released a statement Friday urging Congress to “swiftly pass” the Equality Act, a bill that would eliminate the legal recognition of male and female sex, cater to gender ideology, and designate protection for the unborn as “pregnancy” discrimination.

Biden said:

I applaud Congressman David Cicilline [D-RI] and the entire Congressional Equality Caucus for introducing the Equality Act in the House of Representatives yesterday, and I urge Congress to swiftly pass this historic legislation. Every person should be treated with dignity and respect, and this bill represents a critical step toward ensuring that America lives up to our foundational values of equality and freedom for all.

Full equality has been denied to LGBTQ+ Americans and their families for far too long. Despite the extraordinary progress the LGBTQ+ community has made to secure their basic civil rights, discrimination is still rampant in many areas of our society. The Equality Act provides long overdue federal civil rights protections on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity, locking in critical safeguards in our housing, education, public services, and lending systems — and codifying the courage and resilience of the LGBTQ+ movement into enduring law.

The House is expected to vote on the Equality Act, H.R. 5, next week. The legislation, which would rewrite civil rights law to include “sexual orientation and gender identity” as protected classes, would likely upend the national culture as Americans have known it.

“The so-called Equality Act is legislative malpractice that turns equality on its head,” said Ryan Anderson, president of Ethics & Public Policy Center (EPPC), in a statement. “It isn’t drafted as a shield to protect vulnerable minorities from unjust discrimination, but as a sword to persecute those who do not embrace new sexual and gender ideologies.”


Ryan T. Anderson@RyanTAndThe Equality Act is legislative malpractice that turns equality on its head. It isn’t drafted as a shield to protect vulnerable minorities from unjust discrimination, but as a sword to persecute those who do not embrace new sexual and gender ideologies.EPPC Scholars Offer Comments on the Equality Act – Ethics & Public Policy CenterScholars at the Ethics and Public Policy Center today weighed in on the Equality Act, which was introduced in the U.S. House and Senate this week, and which is expected to receive a vote in the House…eppc.org11:36 AM · Feb 19, 2021

Anderson underscored the tremendous impact the legislation will have on the privacy of women and girls, as well as the punitive consequences to which faith-based institutions and organizations will be exposed at its hands:

It sacrifices the equality, safety, and privacy of women, while privileging men who identify as women: If this bill becomes law, they’d have a civil right to spend the night in a battered women’s shelter, disrobe in a women’s locker room, and compete on a women’s sports team—even children at K-12 public schools.

Religious institutions fare no better. Religious schools, adoption agencies, and other charities would face federal sanction for operating according to basic biology and mainstream Biblical teaching on sex and marriage. Outrageously, this act exempts itself from the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Pope Francis would be treated as the legal equivalent of a Jim Crow segregationist.

Anderson noted that any questioning of transgender medical treatments and surgeries would be labeled “discrimination” if the Equality Act becomes law.

“And any refusal to support or provide abortions would now be treated as ‘pregnancy’ discrimination,” he continued. “And no one—not even the act’s sponsors—can tell us what would be required under the act to avoid committing ‘discrimination’ in the case of ‘non-binary’ gender identities.”


Breitbart News@BreitbartNewsA new study that examined students who claim to have gender identity issues found that, compared with 45% of students who are comfortable with their biological sex, 78% of gender-disturbed students met the criteria for at least one mental health problem.

Terry Schilling, executive director of American Principles Project (APP), explained further the Equality Act will make permanent in federal law Biden’s executive order on his first day as president regarding “Discrimination on the Basis of Gender Identity or Sexual Orientation.”

Schilling said in a statement:

Of course, this has been their goal for a long time, and we know by now the very terrible consequences which will occur if the ‘Equality’ Act passes. Female athletes will be forced to compete against biological males; women will be forced to share private spaces like bathrooms, locker rooms, and shelters with men; and religious charities will be coerced into violating their beliefs or else be shut down.

Schilling warned while the “Equality” Act sounds virtuous, “every member of Congress should recognize” that a vote in favor of it “is a vote against women, particularly women and girl athletes, as well as a vote against Americans of faith.”

Jon Schweppe, APP director of policy and government affairs, noted in the last Congress the bill passed the House, 236-173, with eight Republicans voting to approve it. However, at that time, it failed to survive in the GOP-controlled Senate.

He explained further:

This year with Democrats controlling the Senate and the Presidency, the bill has at least a non-zero chance at becoming law. Do 10 Senate Republicans defect to get it past the filibuster? Do the Democrats scrap the filibuster in order to pass one of their biggest legislative priorities into law? Seems unlikely, but the margin is still too close for comfort.

Schweppe also warns Americans should not be fooled by the benevolent-sounding title of the “Equality” Act:

I think it’s important for those who don’t follow this issue closely to understand what exactly is wrong with the Equality Act. How could conservatives possibly oppose something that protects people against “discrimination”? That’s just awful, right? The problem is that the Equality Act wouldn’t protect people in need of protection as much as it would fundamentally change civil rights law for the worse.

“The intent of the Equality Act may be to promote equality and tolerance — love is love! — but the practical application of it would be to grant biological men the right to impose their will on women, whenever and wherever they want,” he observed, adding:

Any attempt by a medical professional to encourage a child to identify with their birth sex would be deemed illegal. The long-term result of this, combined with aggressive state statutes, is pretty frightening: parents with kids suffering from gender dysphoria will be forced to provide them with puberty blockers, hormone treatments, and ultimately sex changes, lest they violate the law.

Feminists as well recognize the Equality Act as Biden’s “war on women.”

Women’s Liberation Front (WoLF) said in a post on its website:

While the Equality Act is being sold on promising good things for women, and on ending unfair treatment of lesbian, gay, and bisexual people—which almost everyone agrees are worthy and important goals—it’s poisoned with the destruction of the law’s ability to allow any accommodations for women on the basis of sex.

WoLF noted as well many Americans may be unaware the Equality Act’s gender identity rules would pose a “danger” to women and children:

The bill’s authors made clear that gender identity is to take precedence over and replace sex as a protected category. The bill doesn’t mention individuals with clinically diagnosed gender dysphoria, or undertaking surgical or hormonal transition, thus making clear that self-declared gender identity would be sufficient to claim protected legal status.

EPPC Fellow Mary Rice Hasson commented on the far-reaching consequences of passage of the Equality Act, warning the measure would extend the “federal octopus” into “almost every aspect of Americans’ lives, imposing ‘gender identity’ requirements that effectively snuff out the sex-based rights of females, endanger parental rights, and silence religious believers in the public square.”

Hasson continued:

Make no mistake, if the Equality Act becomes law, children in every public school in America will be sold on a cult concept of the human person—that “who we are” is self-defined by feelings, regardless of biological sex. Female students will be forced into silence—or required to celebrate—when yesterday’s male classmate announces he “identifies” as a “girl” and demands to shower in the girls’ locker room, compete against her in sports, and claim for himself the hard-won rights of women.

“The Equality Act is nothing short of a Pandora’s Box which, once opened, will unleash damaging consequences impossible to undo,” she warned.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2021/02/19/jjoe-bidens-war-on-women-equality-act-to-end-legal-recognition-of-biological-sex/

by

Hollywood Forces Kevin Hart To Step Down As Oscars Host Over Old Gay Jokes

This proves you can make jokes about Gay’s and stay in Hollywood.

 

 

Comedian and A-list actor Kevin Hart announced early Friday morning that he “made the choice to step down” from hosting the 91st Academy Awards amid a backlash over the resurfacing of previous gay jokes and tweets.

“I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year’s Oscar’s….this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists,” Kevin Hart tweeted. “I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past.”

Kevin Hart

✔

@KevinHart4real

I have made the choice to step down from hosting this year’s Oscar’s….this is because I do not want to be a distraction on a night that should be celebrated by so many amazing talented artists. I sincerely apologize to the LGBTQ community for my insensitive words from my past.

36.3K

12:01 AM – Dec 7, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

15K people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

“I’m sorry that I hurt people.. I am evolving and want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart. Much love & appreciation to the Academy,” the Night School star added. “I hope we can meet again.”

Kevin Hart

✔

@KevinHart4real

I’m sorry that I hurt people.. I am evolving and want to continue to do so. My goal is to bring people together not tear us apart.  Much love & appreciation to the Academy.  I hope we can meet again.

22.6K

12:01 AM – Dec 7, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

5,986 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

 

That’s funny.

 

 

Hart’s response to criticism over earlier tweets deemed homophobic by some on Thursday further inflamed a backlash to the comedian two days after he was named host of the upcoming Academy Awards.

On Thursday, Hart wrote on Instagram that critics should “stop being negative” after years-old tweets surfaced in which he used gay slurs. In an accompanying video, a shirtless Hart lounging in bed warily said he wasn’t going to “let the craziness frustrate me.”

“I’m almost 40 years old. If you don’t believe that people change, grow, evolve? I don’t know what to tell you,” said Hart, who added, in all-caps: “I love everybody.”

Hart has since deleted some of the anti-gay tweets, mostly dated from 2009-2011. But they had already been screen-captured and been shared online. In 2011, he wrote in a since-deleted tweet: “Yo if my son comes home & try’s 2 play with my daughters doll house I’m going 2 break it over his head & say n my voice ’stop that’s gay.”

Hart’s attitudes about homosexuality were also a well-known part of his stand-up act. In the 2010 special Seriously Funny, he said “one of my biggest fears is my son growing up and being gay.”

“Keep in mind, I’m not homophobic, I have nothing against gay people, do what you want to do, but me, being a heterosexual male, if I can prevent my son from being gay, I will,” Hart said.

GLAAD, the advocacy group for LGBTQ rights, said Thursday that it has reached out to Oscars broadcaster ABC, the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts, and Sciences and Hart’s management to “discuss Kevin’s anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and record.”

Comedian and actor Billy Eichner was among those on social media who were disappointed with Hart’s response.

“This is not good. A simple, authentic apology showing any bit of understanding or remorse would have been so simple,” Eichner said. “Like I tweeted a few weeks ago, Hollywood still has a real problem with gay men. On the surface it may not look like it. Underneath, it’s far more complicated.”

billy eichner

✔

@billyeichner

This is not good. A simple, authentic apology showing any bit of understanding or remorse would have been so simple. Like I tweeted a few weeks ago, Hollywood still has a real problem with gay men. On the surface it may not look like it. Underneath, it’s far more complicated.

David Mack

✔

@davidmackau

no apology no mention of the lgbt community, just imagine if this was about any other marginalised group

6,998

7:29 PM – Dec 6, 2018

Twitter Ads info and privacy

1,117 people are talking about this

Twitter Ads info and privacy

The film academy on Tuesday announced Hart as host to its February ceremony. Representatives for the academy and for ABC didn’t respond to messages Thursday.

https://www.breitbart.com/entertainment/2018/12/06/kevin-hart-steps-down-as-oscars-host-amid-outcry-over-old-gay-jokes/

by

Things That Trigger The Silly Social Justice Warriors

 

 

Every Damn Things Seems To Trigger Me And So What If I Love Bernie Sanders.

 

 

While most of us are spending the day opening gifts and hanging out with family and friends, some are determined to find everything wrong with Christmas.
According to some on the left, here are five problematic things about Christmas:
Mistletoe:
Some feminists decided that the tradition of kissing under the mistletoe promotes a “rape culture,” with one feminist Twitter account writing that under the mistletoe, “male misogynistic tendencies to manifest themselves in reality.”

It is likely that the anti-mistletoe campaign started as a prank on feminists, but many feminists actually joined in earnestly.
‘Sexist’ Christmas Songs:
Feminist website Bustle has previously assembled a list of “sexist” Christmas songs. In the article titled, “8 Christmas Songs That Are Totally, Terribly Sexist,” Kadeen Griffins lists classics like, “All I Want For Christmas Is You,” “It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas,” and “Baby It’s Cold Outside.”
She writes that “(s)ome of your favorite Christmas songs are kind of really sexist,” and that these Christmas songs “reek of a bit of antifeminism.”
1. “Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer” Has anyone ever actually listened to the lyrics of “Grandma Got Run Over By a Reindeer”? That song is terrible! Thankfully, I don’t hear them playing it on the radio much, but the fact that it’s a novelty song that has been around since the ’70s doesn’t change the fact that it details a poor woman’s drunken death. To my knowledge, Santa doesn’t even get in trouble for it — unless you count in that TV film, wherein Grandma survives and Santa was framed.
Most Offensive Lyric: “It’s not Christmas without Grandma. All the family’s dressed in black. And we just can’t help but wonder, should we open up her gifts or send them back?” Priorities, much?
2. “All I Want For Christmas Is You”
To be fair, I’ve already written a separate article about how “All I Want For Christmas Is You” could stand to be more feminist. And by written a separate article, I mean I rewrote the song entirely. However, despite being one of my personal favorite Christmas songs, I don’t like the idea that the woman narrating the song doesn’t want anything for the holidays except a man — and that she’s relying on another man (Santa Claus) to get the aforementioned man for her.
Most Offensive Lyric: “Santa, won’t you bring me the one I really need? Won’t you please bring my baby to me?”

 

We are going to go eat and throw-up, then we will say I’m triggered.

 

3. “I Saw Mommy Kissing Santa Claus”
The fact that we have an entire song devoted to a woman’s infidelity — with Santa Claus, no less — but no such fun Christmas carol for a guy — despite Mrs. Claus being a thing — really says it all. (And giving this classic Christmas song another listen reveals that there might be something a little more insidious than simple infidelity at play. The child who snuck out of bed and witnessed this alleged instance of cheating apparently thinks it would be hilarious to report this back to Dad… for some reason.)
Most Offensive Lyric: “Oh, what a laugh it would have been if Daddy had only seen Mommy kissing Santa Claus last night!” Um.
4. “It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas”
Listen, I understand that it’s a traditional fact that guys like to play with guns and girls like to play with dolls (or something), but we don’t need to reinforce gender stereotypes in our Christmas carols, okay? Update yourself to the modern century, “It’s Beginning to Look a Lot Like Christmas!” Let’s have the boys put aside the pistols and the girls put aside the dolls and roll out some gender neutral gifts, shall we?
Most Offensive Lyric: “A pair of hopalong boots and a pistol that shoots Is the wish of Barney and Ben. Dolls that will talk and will go for a walk is the hope of Janice and Jen.”

5. “Santa Baby”
I mean, the entire song is essentially someone trying to seduce Santa Claus in order to get a bunch of Christmas presents. Male or female — though the song is traditionally sung by females and directly references being a “good girl” — it’s still a bit awkward to be breathily requesting that Santa get you cars and rings because you called him baby. All the women who independent, throw your hands up at me!
Most Offensive Lyric: “Think of all the fun I’ve missed. Think of all the fellas that I haven’t kissed. Next year I could be just as good… if you’d check off my Christmas list.” Sigh.
6. “Twelve Days of Christmas”
o be fair, “Twelve Days of Christmas” and I have always had problems with one another, mainly because when I was a child I had no idea what they were talking about with some of the items my “true love” was giving to me for Christmas. However, now that I am an adult, I realize how weird and awful it is that my true love is sending me people for Christmas, let alone crowds of people. Take back your ten lords a’ leaping, sir! I’m not into slavery.
Most Offensive Lyric: “On the eighth day of Christmas my true love sent to me: eight maids a’ milking…” a.k.a. the exact moment my true love started sending me people.
7. “Santa Tell Me”
“Santa Tell Me” might have only just come out, but, yes, I’m going to call it out for sexism. Don’t get me wrong. I love Ariana Grande’s latest Christmas hit and I’ve listened to it several times since its debut. However, I have to be the one to reiterate something that many Christmas songs don’t seem to realize: you don’t need to be in love with someone, or in a romantic relationship, to feel happy or fulfilled this Christmas. Say it loud, say it proud. Can someone please write a song about that? (Taylor Swift, I’m looking at you.)
Most Offensive Lyric: “Now I need someone to hold, be my fire in the cold.”
8. “Baby It’s Cold Outside”
“Baby It’s Cold Outside” is a Christmas song so problematic that many covers just outright change the lyrics. You know why. You knowwhy. If you don’t know why, let me be the one to ruin this for you: there’s a line that subtly references the female singer being drugged by the male singer. That alone makes the entire song ten times creepier and ten times more sexist than it would be otherwise, hence why that line is frequently removed.
Most Offensive Lyric: “The neighbors might think… (Baby, it’s bad out there.) Say, what’s in this drink? (No cabs to be had out there.)” Cue shuddering.

https://www.bustle.com/articles/54223-8-christmas-songs-that-are-totally-terribly-sexist

‘Racist’ Jingle Bells Song:
Boston University professor Kyna Hamill recently wrote about “Jingle Bells” and its supposed racism, Fox News reports.
She writes that the song has “racist origins,” pointing to its performances in blackface from the 1800s.
She also writes, “Although ‘One Horse Open Sleigh,’ for most of its singers and listeners, may have eluded its racialized past and taken its place in the seemingly unproblematic romanticization of a normal ‘white’ Christmas, attention to the circumstances of its performance history enables reflection on its problematic role in the construction of blackness and whiteness in the United States.”
Wrapped Gifts:
According to a“Religious Diversity and Holidays” memo given to some University of Minnesota students and staff, “bows/wrapped gifts” are not “appropriate.”

 

I know I am a professional victim.

 

Also listed as not appropriate on that list is Santa Claus, bells, doves, and menorahs, The College Fix reports.
Hallmark Christmas movies:
Some have taken issue with Hallmark Christmas movies, as they are full of largely white and straight people.
An article published to Slate.com bleats that the movies, “brim with white heterosexuals who exclusively, emphatically, and endlessly bellow “Merry Christmas” to every lumberjack and labradoodle they pass. They’re centered on beauty-pageant heroines and strong-jawed heroes with white-nationalist haircuts.”
It continued, “There are occasional sightings of Christmas sweater–wearing black people, but they exist only to cheer on the dreams of the white leads, and everyone on Trump’s naughty list—Muslims, gay people, feminists—has never crossed the snowcapped green-screen mountains to taint these quaint Christmas villages. “Santa Just Is White” seems to be etched into every Hallmark movie’s town seal.”
Salon.com also wrote an article about the movies, saying the Hallmark channel gives a “homogeneous view of the holiday,” that’s “leaving minority actors out in the cold.”
In all seriousness, go hangout with your friends and family. Merry Christmas.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/12/25/the-five-most-triggering-things-about-christmas-according-to-sjws/

by

Gay Mafia Bullies Christian Donut Shop for Helping Homeless Family At Christmastime

The gay mafia is more concerned about having deviant sex than helping children at Christmastime

Commenters on Facebook say The Salvation Army has a history of discriminating against the LGBT community. The non-profit has denied those allegations.

Portland doughnut shop The Holy Donut has drawn a backlash for a holiday promotion that intended to provide gifts, including warm winter clothes, to children in need.

The doughnut shop announced its plan on Facebook. Users did not take kindly to the fact that The Holy Donut partnered with The Salvation Army to find a few children in need. Commenters on Facebook took issue with the partnership, alleging that The Salvation Army has a history of discriminating against the LGBT community. The Salvation Army has denied that it discriminates against anybody for any reason.

“They proselytize to the people in their programs, they reject LGBT people from their shelters. They have tried to scrub their image, but still discriminate,” one commenter wrote on The Holy Donut’s page.

“People are going to boycott The Holy Donut because of YOUR choices. Do you see what we’re getting at? You’re supporting an establishment that doesn’t support your customers, so your customers will stop supporting you,” another commenter said.

The Salvation Army has often come under fire from the LGBT community. In 2012, a Burlington, Vermont, woman said she was fired by The Salvation Army for being bisexual. The Salvation Army has a page on its website that addresses the rumors it has an anti-LGBT agenda.

“We need your help in ending these rumors,” the post reads. “They can persuade people not to give, which in turn diminishes our resources and our ability to serve people in crisis. Please share what you know about The Salvation Army – that we serve anywhere there is need, without discrimination.”

Online commenters seem unmoved. The Holy Donut has received multiple one- and two-star reviews in the past few days on Facebook as people vent their displeasure about the charity drive.

On Tuesday, The Holy Donut posted for a second time about the controversy. If the comments on that post get too negative, the doughnut shop warned, it might delete the post. Comments on that post have been overwhelmingly positive.

 

Holy Donut criticized on social media for teaming with Salvation Army

by

Supreme Court Hears Gay Wedding Cake Case

No one can change the Word of God.

Washington (CNN) The Supreme Court will take up one of the most momentous cases of the term on Tuesday as it considers arguments from a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex couple’s marriage because he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a woman.

The case pits the religious liberty claims of Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, against the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who say Phillips’ actions amount to discrimination.
Some spectators and place holders began waiting in line last Friday to secure one of the rare seats open to the public in the majestic court room.
LGBT rights advocates fear that if the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Phillips, it will diminish its landmark opinion from two years ago that cleared the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. Both sides agree that a ruling in favor of Phillips would also open the door to claims from others who engage in professional services — florists, for example — to claim that their religious liberty exempts them from public accommodation laws applicable to other businesses.
It was back in 1993 that Phillips opened the bakery, knowing at the outset that there would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs. “I didn’t want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith,” he said in an interview, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween.
Flash forward to 2012, when same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two men walked into the bakery.
“The conversation was fairly short,” Philips remembered. “I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open.”
The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn’t create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.
“The Bible says, ‘In the beginning there was male and female,'” Phillips said. He offered to make any other baked goods for the men.
“At which point they both stormed out and left,” he said.
People line up to hear religious liberty case
The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law. Phillips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that requiring him to provide a wedding cake for the couple violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. The court held that the state anti-discrimination law was neutral and generally applicable and did not compel Masterpiece to “support or endorse any particular religious view.” It simply prohibited Phillips from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation.
Phillips then took his case to the Supreme Court and the justices agreed to take it up after mulling it for several weeks.
In court papers, Kristen K. Waggoner, a lawyer from the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing Phillips, argued that the First Amendment guarantees him the right to decline to make wedding cakes that celebrate marriages that are in conflict with his religious beliefs. She said that Phillips is protected by two parts of the First Amendment: its protections of religious exercise and free speech. While she argued that the free exercise clause forbids the commission from targeting Phillips “and like-minded believers for punishment,” she reserved the bulk of her brief for the free speech clause, perhaps targeting potential swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has at times shown an expansive view of free speech.
Waggoner argued that a person viewing one of Phillips’ custom wedding cakes — his “artistic expression” — would “understand that it celebrates and expresses support for the couple’s marriage.” She said the Supreme Court’s compelled speech doctrine “forbids the commission from demanding that artists design custom expression that conveys ideas they deem objectionable.”
In the interview, Phillips said, “I feel I’m being compelled to create artwork for an event — an inherently religious event — that goes against my faith, and I’m being compelled to do so under penalty of jail time and fines.”
Not surprisingly, Mullins and Craig see the case through an entirely different lens: discrimination.
“This case is about more than us, and it’s not about cakes,” Mullins said in an interview. “It’s about the right of gay people to receive equal service.”
“This isn’t about artistic expression,” said Craig. “I don’t feel like we asked for a piece of art, or for him to make a statement, we simply asked him for a cake, and he denied that to us simply because of who we are.”
The couple is being represented in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.
“In essence, the bakery seeks a constitutional right to hang a sign in its shop window proclaiming, ‘Wedding Cakes for Heterosexuals Only,'” the ACLU’s David D. Cole wrote in court briefs.
Cole said that whether a cake is an artistic expression is not at issue. “The question, rather, is whether the Constitution grants businesses open to the public the right to violate laws against discrimination in the commercial marketplace if the business happens to sell an artistic product.” The answer, Cole contends, is “no.”
Supreme Court set to take up LGBT rights and religious liberty
Twenty other states and the District of Columbia likewise expressly prohibit places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.
The Trump administration sides with Phillips in the case, arguing that it falls “within the small set of applications of content-neutral laws that merit heightened scrutiny” from the courts. “A custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. “Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write.”
But the government lawyers did draw a line when it comes to race, arguing that laws targeting race-based discrimination may survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny in part because racial bias “is a familiar and recurring evil that poses unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns.”
http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/05/politics/supreme-court-masterpiece-cakeshop/index.html