The Gay Couple In The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Are Vindictive Bullies, Not Victims.

by Matt Walsh


The Supreme Court began hearing arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case today. Ben Shapiro has already provided a helpful refresher on the case, which you can read here. If you’re too lazy to click the link, here are the basic bullet points:

-Jack Phillips owns and operates a bakery called Masterpiece Cakeshop.

-Phillips is a devout Christian.

-Phillips used to make beautiful cakes, but is no longer permitted to do so.

-He’s no longer permitted to make cakes because one time, a few years ago, he declined to decorate a cake for a gay wedding.

-I say “decorate a cake” not “make,” because he was perfectly willing to sell the gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a cake. He was willing to sell them any pastry they wanted. But, due to his religious beliefs, he couldn’t decorate it with a gay wedding theme.

-Phillips had also in the past refused to decorate Halloween cakes and divorce party cakes. Nobody ever complained about that.

-Rather than respond like empathetic, decent, civilized human beings, Mullins and Craig decided to embark on a five-year campaign to ruin Phillips and destroy his business.

-The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decreed that Phillips can no longer make any cakes for anyone, and he must provide gay-friendly “reeducation” to his employees.

-Phillips lost 40% of his business and had to fire half of his work force.

-Now the Supreme Court will decide whether a private citizen can be legally compelled to create a piece of art celebrating something they find morally objectionable.

Those are the fundamental facts of the case. Now, here are a few other things to keep in mind as you read about the oral arguments and await the final decision:

1. This is one of the most important Supreme Court cases in American history.

The First Amendment is on trial, not Jack Phillips. 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?

Phillips doesn’t need the First Amendment when he makes a birthday cake. 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 needs it precisely when he’s faced with the dilemma that Mullins and Craig presented. 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.

If the Supreme Court decides in favor of the gay lobby, what next? 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. If Phillips goes down, the churches will be next. 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? Indeed, if Phillips doesn’t have the right to withhold his cake, why should the local priest have the right to withhold his church? He doesn’t, in that case. He won’t. Mark my words.

2. When First Amendment rights are pitted against LGBT rights, First Amendment rights should always win.

Because LGBT rights don’t exist. 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.

Phillips is not claiming any special rights. 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.

Mullins and Craig, on the other hand, are saying that a special exception must be made for them, specifically, because they’re gay. Notice how nobody is challenging (for now) Phillips’ right to continue turning down Halloween cakes and divorce cakes and lewd bachelorette party cakes, etc. Mullins and Craig are arguing that their situation is different because they’re gay. 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.

3. The behavior of the gay couple in this case has been truly despicable.

Let’s be clear about the real victim in this situation. Phillips — the decent, hardworking Christian business owner, who employed members of his community and provided a valuable service — is the victim. He did not seek out this notoriety. He did not want to be at the center of a national controversy. He just wanted to make his cakes and live his life. He was a decent, normal man, living a decent, normal, inconspicuous life. Until Mullins and Craig walked in the door.

There were many bakeries they could have chosen. They just so happened to walk into the one bakery run by an openly devout Christian, asking for a flamboyantly decorated cake for their impending gay wedding. Was this just a coincidence? Did these two gay men accidentally stumble into the one bakery in Colorado that would refuse to make their cake?

Well, if that’s the case, then their response to Phillips can only be described as psychotic. If all they wanted was a cake, and their request was completely innocent, and they truly did not expect to be turned away, then their behavior over the following five years is inexplicable and deranged to an unbelievable extreme. They have, by this version of events, spent half a decade angrily exacting revenge on a man because he didn’t want to put gay-themed decorations on a dessert pastry. They have put their whole life on hold to pursue legal penalties against the guy who politely declined to adorn a cake with a rainbow and two plastic grooms. It’s vengeful and spiteful to an unfathomable degree. These are possibly the pettiest human beings to have ever walked the face of the Earth.


Or this was all calculated. They sought out Jack Phillips hoping to get exactly the response he gave them, and then they proceeded to use him as a pawn to advance their political agenda and destroy the rights of Christians in America. They are activists parading themselves around as an aggrieved and innocent married couple. I think this is the more accurate characterization. And it is entirely in keeping with how the gay lobby usually operates.

Either way, they’re the bullies here. They’re the villains of this drama. Phillips is an innocent man fighting for his right to live and work in peace, and in accordance with his faith.

May his cause prevail, for his sake and ours.

If an adult man and a young boy, both members of the North America Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA), walked into Mr. Phillips’ bakeshop, gives him a statuette depicting a boy performing oral sex on a man, is Mr. Phillips legally required to design such a cake for the two? 

What if the two homosexuals in this story asked the same thing of Mr. Phillips? Would he be legally required to design the cake for them?

This issue is all about where we draw the line, isn’t it? And nearly all of us would draw the line right there and say, “ENOUGH!”.

The Supreme Court will rule in favor of Mr. Walsh. If not, the Lunatic Left and they will come after us on so many fronts we won’t be able to keep count.

And the people will rise up and strike them down with the mighty sword of Truth, Decency and the original intent of the First Amendment to the Constitution.

– The Liberator

Barack Obama: the Most Corrupt President in US History


by J. Christian Adams

“When Holder dismissed my New Black Panther case in 2009, a few months after they were sworn in, those of us working at the Department began to see this radical transformation taking place, just starting at the time.  And you didn’t think it was possible, right?  You didn’t think that, okay, the men with billy clubs in front of a poll, and you bring a case and the case is dismissed, but you also didn’t think they would keep going.  And frankly, the New Black Panther case, with the benefit of hindsight, was just the beginning of a radicalized transformation of, frankly, the United States.

Holder and Obama institutionalized this radicalism at the Justice Department.  They made it not radicalism to the people who work there.  To the people who worked there, my colleagues, this was simply this new, enlightened way of thinking.  It was progressivism meets power, and that’s what you saw over the course of 8 years.  They turned the law into a relativist, racialist, radicalism, and that’s what we saw time after time after time.

Because these people, frankly, ranging from moderates to all-out communists who work at the Department, are not giving this up.  This is a theology to these people.  You have to understand that.  The people who think they’re going to transform the world using the power of law and your tax dollars to do it, and they aren’t giving up easily…”

Click HERE for the whole story.

Barack Obama has SO MANY people fooled. He is pure evil; a profoundly dishonest man who is very skilled at hiding the truth about his intentions. And he may just get away with it. Pray that he doesn’t.  – The Liberator 

Establishment Elites ‘Want to Manage the Decline of America’

But American People ‘Rage Against the Dying of the Light’

Americans are rejecting an offer of managed American decline from the political class, said veteran pollster Pat Caddell on Wednesday’s edition of Breitbart News Tonight on SiriusXM.


by ROBERT KRAYCHIK 13 Dec 2017

Drawing on Dylan Thomas’s 1947 poem, Caddell waxed poetic during a discussion with SiriusXM host and Breitbart News’ Executive Chairman Stephen K. Bannon.

“They will not go gently into that good night of decline,” said Caddell. “The American people will rage against the dying of the light, and that is the moment that we are continuing toward.”

The narrative of American decline — commensurate with relative ascendancies from global competitors among the world’s emerging economies – is often frame by progressive elites as both an inevitable and desirable trajectory.

The election of Donald Trump to the presidency, said Bannon, was a function of popular rejection of American decline:

“It’s one of the things I told then-candidate Trump … ‘[Caddell’s] underlying research shows that the country’s heading your way, that it’s two-thirds [of Americans view the country on the] wrong track. More importantly, that America, 70 or 75 percent of the people believe America is in decline.’”

“And in fact,” continued Bannon, “What the establishment wants, and what the opposition to President Trump wanted, was really managed decline; and what President Trump represented with the ‘Make America Great Again’ – and the ‘again’ is the key word, there – was the deplorables, that working class and middle class people of this country were not prepared to accept the central thesis that America was in decline.”

Caddell’s research into American perceptions of national decline, said Bannon, formed the “intellectual basis” for the “Trump movement.”

Electoral support for Trump, said Caddell, was rooted in three popular beliefs: 1. “The system is corrupt;” 2. “The country is decline;” and 3. “Things are rigged against them in the political class.”

“The political class and the mainstream media, who are so dedicated to a narrative of their own excellence, failed because… the stupidity of politics, historically in the world, is because leaders and others are willing to jeopardize their countries if necessary rather than risk their power. They are unable to say, ‘We we wrong.’”

The “political class,” said Caddell, “want to manage the decline of America” to bring about a “soft landing.” Americans are now seeking to reclaim their sovereignty, he added.

“It is time for the people to once again be the sovereigns of their own country, and that is the fundamental basis of America,” said Caddell. “It is what the political establishment and the elites cannot comprehend, that these deplorables are actually their bosses, their superiors … Democracy in the hands of the elites — in false hands, if you will — is paralyzed. Democracy in the hands of the people possesses an irrepressible magic, and that’s the moment that we’re continuing to move on here, as much as they’re trying to kill it, and ignore it, and deny it, and fit it into their parameters, the elites and the media and political class cannot.”

Government parasitism is fueling a populist insurgency against the “political class,” said Caddell. “The enrichment of the political class, by the deals and the things they do is so deeply corrupt… this is the real issue. It’s not just the swamp, it’s worse than that. It is a corruption that is corrupting the very soul of America where everything’s a deal, and everything is hidden, and everything is to benefit the political class.”

The American people’s reclamation of sovereignty is the greatest threat to entrenched establishment elites, said Caddell: “It is the peasants out here who are causing trouble that they most want to suppress, they and their allies in the media.”

Caddell waxed patriotic in expressing his affection for America’s political judgments and the public’s virtue: “In the aggregate, the American people want to do the right thing and they’re very smart. Even when they break my heart, I understand what they’ve done, politically.”

Caddell and Bannon took calls from Breitbart News’ SiriusXM audience, whom Bannon described as “the greatest audience in all media.” Caddell shared his admiration.

“I’m making notes,” said Caddell said of the callers. “These people who call in — this is what I call the intelligence of the American people, the native intelligence. I’m not really a conservative, but I’m a populist, I’m an American exceptionalist… The greatest problem for the establishment is the American people now know they can take power in their hands.”

Bannon and Caddell discussed similar themes in November at the David Horowitz Freedom Center’s Restoration Weekend in Palm Beach, Florida; watch the discussion here.

Widespread fears of American decline have been on Caddell’s political radar for decades. As he observed in a 1992 Los Angeles Times interview:

For the last 25 years, the politicians in this country have presided over a decline, and it is impossible for them to acknowledge it. Because to change, to turn the country toward what has to be done, they would first have to tell the truth. And to do that would be to risk their own power, because, in a democracy, that means standing up and saying, “We have failed.” And the track record of people who do that is not very good. So the Democratic Party lives a lie, the Washington Establishment lives a lie: “Nothing’s really wrong, don’t worry about the $400-million deficit, just elect us.”

Bannon a Purveyor of “Hate Speech” (ROFLMAO)

Steve Bannon’s return to a radio hosting gig is kicking up some celebrity backlash.

Actors Seth Rogen, John Leguizamo, and singer-songwriter Melissa Etheridge have all promised to boycott SiriusXM for allowing Bannon to appear on the subscription radio service.

The outcry started after SiriusXM announced last Tuesday that Bannon, the former chief strategist for President Trump, would be a host on the “Breitbart News Daily” radio show. It airs on Patriot, a conservative station.

“I can’t bring myself to appear on the same service that has decided to support Steve Bannon,” Rogen tweeted Friday, adding that he canceled a scheduled press tour on SiriusXM. Rogen stars in the new film “The Disaster Artist.”

Etheridge also suggested Friday that she would abandon her involvement with Volume, a SiriusXM music channel. She has hosted an interview program on the channel called “Melissa’s Basement.”

“After news that @SIRIUSXM has given #SteveBannon a show, I can no longer in good conscience be a part of my show,” she tweeted, later adding, “I will fight for anyone’s right to free speech. I will not be a part of amplifying or normalizing hate speech.”

Leguizamo, the Broadway and screen actor, followed Sunday. He tweeted to his more than 800,000 followers that he “just canceled my #SiriusXM because they hired #Bannon ! No hate mongers!”

The hashtag #BoycottSiriusXM, meanwhile, was posted or shared by thousands of social media users over the weekend, according to the tracking site Keyhole.

SiriusXM said in a statement Friday that the network “has promised to deliver a diversity of opinions and viewpoints, from conservative to progressive to everything in between.”

“Free speech is vitally important. We ardently believe that by allowing a virtually unlimited platform of viewpoints, we are doing our best to uphold that core value,” SiriusXM said.

The company declined to comment further on Sunday.

Bannon is familiar with radio. The Breitbart News executive chairman was a host on Patriot before the 2016 election. He joined the Trump campaign in its final months and served in the administration until August.

In its announcement, SiriusXM also said Breitbart would expand its presence on Patriot with a new daily weeknight show and additional weekend programming.

The financial terms of Bannon’s relationship with SiriusXM are not clear. When asked if Bannon is paid by the network, spokesman Patrick Reilly said SiriusXM does “not discuss the terms of our programming deals.”

Bannon did not provide a response to the potential boycott when asked by CNN on Sunday.

Melissa Etheridge is the embodiment of the liberal mind. “You are engaging in hate speech if you disagree with me.”  – The Liberator

The Ugly Truth About that Dying Polar Bear

Have you seen the footage of that dying polar bear yet?

It’s sad. Very sad. You can see why it has gone viral and been all over the media from the Mail (“soul-crushing footage”) to CBC to the Washington Post (“we stood there crying”).

It’s the kind of sad thing you want to share it with your friends so they can wallow in the same pool of helpless misery you’re wallowing in.

For example, that bit where the emaciated bear reaches with his sad paw into that rusting trash can in search of something, anything, to eat. As you watch, you want so desperately to help him….

The footage was filmed on Baffin Island in Canada. Surely, if you or I had been there, we could have found something edible to push that stricken bear’s way: maybe a visiting delegation of performance poets, abstract artists and avant-garde musicians who arrived by antique sailing ship on a Rockefeller-Foundation-funded arts project to “raise awareness” of melting icecaps; or a group of Greenpeace activists(aren’t bears attracted by strong smells?) on a No To Arctic Drilling protest; or one of the plethora of explorers on another of those deep and meaningful eco-expeditions, sponsored by one of those big reinsurance companies whose business model largely depends on scaring potential clients into thinking global warming is a serious problem.

OK, perhaps I shouldn’t be so flippant. Watching a once-mighty beast in its death throes is never a pretty sight.

I’ll tell you what’s a lot uglier, though: the way that polar bear’s death has been completely misrepresented for political ends by the usual suspects in the climate alarmism lobby.

And I’ll tell you what’s uglier even than that: all the old people – not bears but actual humans – who’ve died equally miserable deaths in fuel poverty brought about by precisely the kind of environmentalist propagandizing we’ve seen in the cynical, manipulative promotion of this video.

The dying bear video was shot by wildlife photographer Paul Nicklen for an eco-activist organization called SeaLegacy.

Here is how SeaLegacy is exploiting its ursine tragedy porn.

Though it wasn’t possible for scientists to tell us exactly what was causing this bear to starve to death, we do know that he didn’t have any visible wounds and that he was not an old bear.

 What we do know for certain is that an increasing number of polar bears, and other polar species, are likely to die in this way as a result of our warming climate. As global temperatures rise, the amount of multi-year sea ice in the Arctic shrinks. Polar bears depend on that ice to travel large distances and to hunt for their food. Without sea ice this will become a common scene across the Arctic.

Let me translate: “We’ve no evidence whatsoever that this bear’s death had anything to do with climate change. But we’re still going to offer a few very heavy hints that that’s exactly what killed the bear. Then we can rely on a gullible media hungry for man-is-evil, global-warming-is-bad-m’kay, think-of-the-children sob stories to do all our dirty work for us…”

And, yes, the media obliged.

Every one of the media outlets which reported on the story duly relayed the “fact” that the bear’s death had something to do with global warming. The Daily Mail online‘s coverage, for example, featured a whole fact box explaining how climate change means all the bears are going to die because of the usual pseudo-scientific crap about summer sea ice and seals and hunting grounds.

I call it pseudo-scientific crap because that’s exactly what it is.

Here’s polar bear expert Susan Crockford giving chapter and verse on the subject.

In August, [when it was filmed] this bear would have been only recently off the sea ice: since most bears are at their fattest at this time of year, something unusual had to have affected his ability to hunt or feed on the kills he made when other bears around him did not starve and die. It could have been something as simple as being out-competed for food in the spring by older animals.

But if sea ice loss due to man-made global warming had been the culprit, this bear would not have been the only one starving: the landscape would have been littered with carcasses. This was one bear dying a gruesome death as happens in the wild all the time (there is no suggestion that a necropsy was done to determine cause of death, just like Stirling’s bear that supposedly died of climate change.)

That’s Stirling as in Ian Stirling – yet another environmental campaigner who exploited footage of a dying polar bear for exactly the same ursine tragedy porn purposes as recently as 2013. Then, as now, the media just couldn’t get enough of it.

Here, for example, is the Guardian‘s take. It was captioned – inevitably – “Starved polar bear due to record sea-ice melt, says expert”.

In fact, as we again learn from Susan Crockford – long reviled by eco-campaigners for her unhelpful habit of telling the truth about polar bear populations – there’s quite a thriving industry in polar bear snuff movies.

This is no different from Ian Stirling’s “bear that died of climate change”back in 2013, or several others since then: herehere, and here (one of these incidents also involved the same photographer as this incident, Paul Nicklen). I’ve called this practice of filming dead or dying bears and splashing the photos across the pages of newspapers and the internet “tragedy porn” — a kind of voyerism that leaves people open to emotional manipulation. The internet laps it up.

Let’s consider how perverse this is.

The world’s polar population is thriving. It’s at what in recent historical terms are record levels of 30,000. That’s about six times more than there were fifty years ago.

But the greenies don’t want you to think about this. All they want to do is exploit the polar bear as some kind of totemic symbol of man-made climate doom – even the evidence doesn’t support this.

That’s why, for the greenies, footage of one polar bear dying of starvation is far, far more valuable than footage of the many thousands of more which are not dying of starvation and which are in fact thriving so well that they are in danger of becoming a pest.

In a world without cause and effect this might not matter.

Unfortunately, in the real world, misleading green propaganda such as this has real consequences for actual human beings.

It is an utterly inexcusable lie that the death of the polar bear in that video had anything to do with man-made climate change.

The reason that lie is utterly inexcusable is because of the chain events such lies create: the public is misinformed; green NGOs become richer and more influential; politicians are more inclined to take expensive, unnecessary action to deal with non-existent problems; electricity prices “necessarily sky rocket”; old people die.

Not bears, note. People.

Now that’s what I call tragedy.

The most important lesson from this story is the reminder that liberals will lie to advance their cause. Always.They have no conscience, only a mission. I realize I’ve said this often, but to repeat, it is their CORE strategy. 

– The Liberator

Questions to Ponder

Should an Islamic store owner be forced to sell pork products?

Should a Christian bookstore be forced to sell books by Satanists?

Should a Jewish print shop be forced to print posters for a neo-Nazi rally?

Should a newspaper be forced to place ads in their paper they find offensive?

Should a baker be forced to design a wedding cake for a gay couple?

The first four questions put the fifth one in perspective, don’t they? The radical gay couple doesn’t really want a cake. They want the head of the Christian baker.

– The Liberator

NFL Taking Money From Breast Cancer, Veterans Funds, To Pay For ‘Social Justice’ Settlement

San Francisco 49er Eric Reid shocked even the left-leaning Slate when he told the magazine in an interview Saturday that the NFL intends to use money slated for breast cancer charities and the “Salute to Service” veterans fund to pay for a seven-year, $89 million “social justice” program designed to placate protesting players.

The NFL announced the nearly-$100 million initiative last week as a way of “settling” with a coalition of players who have been kneeling during the national anthem since the start of the season — a group led by now-former 49er, out-of-work second string quarterback Colin Kaepernick, Philadelphia Eagles’ Malcolm Jenkins and retired NFLer Anquan Boldin.

At the time of the announcement, however, details about where the money would come from were unclear. The NFL said only that owners would be allowed to allocate funds into “projects dealing with criminal justice reform, law enforcement/community relations and education.” But, Reid says, the money spent on these projects isn’t new — it’s simply being reallocated from existing charitable giving projects.

“In the discussion that we had, Malcolm [Jenkins] conveyed to us — based on discussions that he had with the NFL — that the money would come from funds that are already allocated to breast cancer awareness and Salute to Service,” Reid told Slate. “So it would really be no skin off the owners’ backs: They would just move the money from those programs to this one.”

That didn’t sit well with Reid, who was part of the coalition of players who had been protesting the national anthem. He and several others say they elected to leave the bargaining group because they didn’t believe it was fair to pull money from other worthwhile causes to fund “social justice” projects, particularly when players have insisted all year that their protests aren’t anti-military, only to have their cause pull millions from a fund to help veterans.

They, of course, blamed NFL commissioner Roger Goodell for the idea, claiming that Goodell wanted to bring the protests to an end as quickly as possible, but in such a way as to not hurt the owners too much in the process. In essence, Reid claims, Goodell wanted to pay off the kneelers in order to get the league’s viewership back on track ahead of the end of the season.

The NFL didn’t provide a comment to Slate on the matter.

You can’t fix stupid…or incredibly, mind-bogglingly selfish. The NFL has a lock on both. May they waste away into nothingness. – The Liberator