Connect with us

Culture and Religion

People of faith in Colorado pray over Jack Phillips



People of Faith in Colorado pray over Jack Phillips

Jack Phillips is the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, Colorado.  He will soon be heading for a legal showdown as Phillips takes his case to the U.S. Supreme Court on December 5.  People of faith came to surround him with prayer at a rally on the campus of Colorado Christian University on November 8.  It was not just Evangelical or Conservative Christians that came out in support.  Yaakov Menken of the Coalition for Jewish Values and Denver lawyer Stephen Collis who is a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (Mormon), also attended the Jack Phillips rally.

This will be the true test of our new Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch if he will just go along with bad precedent made before, or if he will truly follow our U.S. Constitution and uphold freedom of religion as it is written in our First Amendment.

I have followed Phillips story since the beginning of this legal entanglement.  I honestly believe that Charlie Craig and David Mullins shopped for someone that would NOT bake them a wedding cake.  This gay couple could have gone to an LGBTQ friendly business like they should have, and made a business transaction there.  Instead, they decided (along with the the American Civil Liberties Union) to put a target on Jack Phillips. Now, he can’t create wedding cakes because he would have to offend his God who calls homosexuality an abomination.

Charlie Craig and David MullinsPhillips would have to submit to the state of Colorado and embrace same-sex weddings and create “Masterpieces” on those pagan ideals of marriage.  Same-sex wedding cakes are not the only thing he will not do.  Phillips will not do Halloween themed cakes, either.  Should he be forced to do that too, or is it just about getting people of faith to accept perversion (and then some) because of progressives that want to push it on society?  And if they don’t accept it, then is it okay to jail and then later execute them for their faith?

When longtime Denver radio personality Peter Boyles and his radio outlet KNUS AM 710 did a remote broadcast from Masterpiece Cakes, I took the time to drive up to the business to show my support for Phillips.  While Boyles has been an open supporter of same-sex marriage, he does understand something about freedom of conscience.    I condemn Craig and Mullins for allowing Phillips to be dragged through the legal mud and be called a Nazi by the so-called human rights commission in Colorado.  These same progressives don’t seem to have a problem with freedom of religion when it comes to those who call themselves Muslim.  By the way, the LGBTQ were hacked off by those in the Islamic faith in nations where Islam is the state religion.  One more thing, Jack’s father served in the American Armed Forces in World War II.

The bottom line is that the progressives want to use same-sex marriage as a weapon against Bible-believing Christians.  They have not minced words regarding their hatred of not only Christians and Jews (in name and practice) but also a hatred OF their faith.  Will Justice Gorsuch side with Craig and Mullins?

It is not Jack Phillips that they truly want to harm.  It’s God, his son Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.  That is who they truly want to harm.  They can only harm the Blessed Trinity by harming his people and those who stand with them.  God can handle the abuse and in the long run. He will put an end to it like he has before.

Further Reading

Believers rally around Cakeshop’s Jack Phillips before religious liberty case from the Catholic, Jewish and Mormon communities — as well as other evangelical small-business owners — came together Wednesday to offer their encouragement at a rally Wednesday at Colorado Christian University.

Oral argument is scheduled Dec. 5 before the Supreme Court in the Masterpiece case, the first to be considered by the high court involving whether bakers, florists, filmmakers and other creative professionals who cater to weddings must serve same-sex ceremonies.

Justice for Jack – Alliance Defending Freedom a cake artist declines to design a cake for a Halloween party, the world goes about its business. But if that same cake artist declines a request for a custom cake for a same-sex wedding, he is forced to defend his decision all the way to the United States Supreme Court. Why must Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips defend his right to decline one event and not the other? In America, artistic expression shouldn’t be subject to government control. Jack’s case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, is an example of what happens when the government gets into the ideology business and begins to punish private citizens if they don’t share and celebrate the same beliefs as the state. Now the Supreme Court must decide—does the First Amendment protect Jack’s artistic freedom, a principle the high court has long defended, or not?

Someone who wants to be a voice for liberty and freedom. Telecom (Radio/TV) Pikes Peak Community College 1993-1998, BS Journalism, minor Political Science, Colorado State University-Pueblo 1999-2004

Continue Reading


  1. ed

    November 11, 2017 at 5:28 pm

    Thank you for posting this update.

    I feel there is a nationwide backlash against the entire LGBTQ agenda and all those that support them brewing and gaining in intensity.
    The LGBTQ hatred and bigotry will be revisited upon them several-fold and they LGBTQ activists on the receiving end will find no-one willing to listen to their tears when their over-reach is finally slapped down.

  2. Don McCullen

    November 11, 2017 at 5:51 pm

    Regardless of the outcome, this hopefully shows that the LGBTQ jihad are nothing but bullies and that the progressives are only using them to pound the final nails into Christianity’s “rotting corpse” and persecute those who hold on to that respected faith.

  3. maxonepercent

    November 11, 2017 at 8:53 pm

    This case goes so far beyond religious liberties and the gay agenda, this case is all about the freedom of association. The government should not be allowed to FORCE individuals to associate with others against their own will. If someone owns a business they should be allowed to deny service to anyone for any reason they want.

    • Don McCullen

      November 11, 2017 at 9:41 pm

      I agree with you Max. Business should have the right to refuse to service to anyone.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Culture and Religion

When have the Enemies of Liberty on the Left ever compromised on the 2nd amendment?




The history of freedom always has been one of it’s enemies slowly ratcheting it down with restraints in the name of equality or security.

Everyone knows the drill by now, a ‘Serious Crisis’ takes place, the Left immediately demands the surrender of more human rights forcing the innocent to pay for the sins of the guilty. Meanwhile, those who dare defend those rights are pilloried with almost every pejorative in the book.

The history of Liberty Control has always been one of unending incremental infringements on our rights. The enemies of Liberty on the Left always follow the same progression. They begin with spurious claims over the ‘easy access to guns’, getting whatever they can, after which they reset the sequence for the next go around.

The Left’s idea of ‘progress’ is always one direction, with demands that the pro-liberty side give up as yet more of their freedom. Each time around it’s the same story, with only ever worsening regularity. But why is this the case? When have the Liberty controllers on the left ever compromised on the common sense human right of self-defence, or any other liberties for that matter?

Liberty Control down through the ages.

The dirty little secret of Liberty control is that it has it’s roots in racism, epitomised in the infamous United States Supreme Court case DRED SCOTT v. SANDFORD, (1856):

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Please note that it specifically mentions “the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”, as the partial rationale for the decision.

Further on, the past century has saw an inexorable sequence of infringements with the examples ranging from the National Firearms Act of 1934, the Gun Control Act of 1968 to the Brady act of 1993.

In some rare cases, the Republican party spearheaded some partial relief of earlier infringements, but these were always accompanied with other restrictions. The overall trend has always been ever intensifying restrictions on the rights that are supposed to be free from infringement.

The Left’s idea of ‘compromise.’

It should be obvious by now that the enemies of Liberty on the Left do not want anyone to have the basic human right of self-preservation. They have made that clear in many articles, editorials and videos on the subject of repealing the 2nd amendment or outright gun confiscation.  Consequently, it can be presumed that anything short of that immediate goal is a ‘compromise’ to them.
The win-win eventuality for them is that their ‘compromise’ positions sets up for their ultimate goal none the less. Asserting government control over everyone’s private property with ‘Intergalactic’ Background Checks followed on with the governmental permission requirements in gun registration that will eventually lead to gun confiscation. They would also like to control free-speech with the expedient of ‘Political correctness’ or entirely undefined ‘Hate speech’. But for now they merely want to get people used to these restrictions on Liberty.

The Takeaway

The Left’s increasing stridency towards Liberty has intensified as of late, which is quite odd given that they supposedly support the concept with the self-labeling as “Liberals”. The Left has become single-minded in their pursuit of gun confiscation(and it’s precursors), to the point of rejecting measures that would actually serve to protect the children. As is typical of the nation’s Left, they self-label their obsession with taking guns away from the innocent as being ‘reasonable’. Meanwhile, they vehemently oppose workable solutions to the problems they caused in the first place.

Their latest tactic is to exploit the victims of mass murder in a bid to shut down debate and impose their unworkable ‘solutions’ to the exclusion of anything else. Do they even sound ‘reasonable’ or ‘Liberal’ for that matter? They incessantly complain that the proponents of Liberty won’t surrender their principles and once again yield to their demands, but when will they ever compromise and defend liberty?



Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

An open letter to Sen. Lamar Alexander, US Senate on the nomination of Chai Feldblum



The Honorable Lamar Alexander

Chairman of the Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions committee

United States Senate

CC United States Senators

March 17, 2018


Dear Senator Alexander,

It has come to my attention that President Trump has re-nominated Chai Feldblum to her position as commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). This news has brought me grave concern.

On behalf of the American people, it is up to you and the rest of the Senate to remedy this unfortunate situation.

As you are aware, the EEOC deals with cases of workplace discrimination; having the power to enforce federal laws, investigate discrimination complaints, regulate and pursue legal charges against private businesses, and influence public opinion. It is imperative that any federal agency entrusted with such powers be steered by the conscientious counsel of unbiased leadership.

A former college basketball coach once said, “Offense is not equal opportunity.” However, since her appointment by former President Obama in 2010, Ms. Feldblum has exploited her position at the EEOC to offensively further her own fanatical advocacy goals at the expense of religiously-oriented American citizens, the Bill of Rights be damned.

Religious liberty, inviolable and protected from governmental infringement by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, is richly ingrained in our country’s values, having been secured by the blood of our ancestors. In fact, religious liberty, often referred to by the Founders as freedom of conscience, was considered by early Americans to be so precious that, even in the midst of America’s fight for independence, conscience objections were considered sacrosanct.

Consider the words of America’s first President, George Washington, in a letter to Benedict Arnold during America’s Revolutionary War:

“While we are contending for our own liberty, we should be very cautious not to violate the conscience of others, ever considering that God alone is the judge of the hearts of men, and to Him only in this case are they answerable.”

For Chai Feldblum, however, religious freedom must be subjugated with the full force of the government’s ugly fist.

She is, in a word, tyrannical.

Merriam-Webster’s online dictionary defines tyranny as “a rigorous [strict] condition imposed by some outside agency or force,” as imposed by a tyrant.

A tyrant is defined as “one resembling an oppressive ruler in the harsh use of authority or power.”

Ms. Feldblum has made several deeply troubling statements that betray her tyrannical intentions, wholly at odds with America’s founding principles:

  • “I’m having a hard time coming up with any case in which religious liberty should win… Sexual liberty should win in most cases. There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner (emphasis mine).”
  • “I believe granting liberty to gay people advances a compelling government interest, that such an interest cannot be adequately advanced if ‘pockets of resistance’ to a societal statement of equality are permitted to flourish, and hence that a law that permits no individual exceptions based on religious beliefs will be the least restrictive means of achieving the goal of liberty for gay people (emphasis mine).”

Ms. Feldblum’s seditious statements are in dramatic contrast to what Benjamin Franklin wrote in 1774, in Emblematic Representations:

“The ordaining of laws in favor of one part of the nation, to the prejudice and oppression of another, is certainly the most erroneous and mistaken policy. An equal dispensation of protection, rights, privileges, and advantages, is what every part is entitled to, and ought to enjoy (emphasis mine)”

In addition, Ms. Feldblum’s thesis on the proper role of government is unequivocally incompatible with the words spoken by President Thomas Jefferson during his first inaugural address, 1801:

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned – this is the sum of good government.”

Chai Feldblum’s offensive advocacy through the EEOC is so extreme and outside of Constitutional bounds that, in 2012, the usually divided Supreme Court of the United States ruled unanimously against Feldblum’s EEOC attempt to void the “Ministerial Exemption,” which allows leeway for religious organizations to carry out routine, religiously-related matters of hiring and terminating employees.

While Ms. Feldblum claims to represent the LGBTQ+ community, she speaks only for a small, yet loud portion of the demographic; one comprised almost entirely of radical LGBTQ+ activists.

In truth, Ms. Feldblum’s fanatical, extremist, ideologically-driven agenda only serves to marginalize a significant portion of sexual minorities, in addition to women and countless Americans of religious orthodoxy.

Ignoring the conservative, sexual minorities who disapprove of the forced subjugation of religious Americans, Ms. Feldblum propagates stereotypes of the various people she claims to represent, and actively encourages neighbors to go to war with neighbors.

Feldblum insists on a “zero-sum” game, where religious Americans and members of the LGBTQ+ community are incapable of living peaceably side-by-side. As the architect of former President Obama’s Transgender executive order, Feldblum further victimizes traumatized women and children, insisting they must tolerate an unsafe existence, as grown men are ushered into their locker rooms and bathrooms in the name of “progress.” Feldblum insists on subjugating religious, yet same-sex attracted business owners in the private market, drastically hindering their pursuit of happiness through economic independence. Feldblum insists that all LGBTQ+ Americans think as she does.

Ms. Feldblum is a tyrant; wholly unworthy of another five years at the helm of the EEOC.

Speaking on the sacredness of religious liberty in America, Samuel Adams stated, August 1, 1776:

“Driven from every other corner of the earth freedom of thought and the right of private judgment in matters of conscience direct their course to this happy country as their last asylum.”

The responsibility, Senator Alexander, now rests with you and the Senate to protect religious liberty as vigorously and as confidently as our Founding Fathers.

If you fail to perform this duty, this great test of your legacy as one of the leaders of the free world, may the words of Samuel Adams haunt you for the remainder of your days:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”


Most sincerely,


Paige Rogers, Tennessee

Continue Reading

Culture and Religion

Video: The Racist roots of Liberty control – Who doesn’t like certain people getting rights?




In honour of #NationalWalkoutDay let’s look at those who really don’t like certain people getting rights – specifically the common sense human right of self-preservation.

This is NationalWalkoutDay [Who would have thought that kids would want to skip school?] With one of the most important human rights in the spotlight, it would be a good idea to examine the reasons why this has been suppressed in the past. To begin, consider Hillary Clinton’s statement smearing most of the country:

So I won the places that are optimistic, diverse, dynamic, moving forward, and his whole campaign, Make America Great Again, was looking backwards. “You don’t like black people getting rights, you don’t like women getting jobs, you don’t want to see that Indian-American succeeding more than you are, whatever your problem is, I’m going to solve it.”

So who really is opposed to the certain people getting their common sense human rights? The following video from Colion Noir details that Liberty (gun) control has it’s roots in racism:

Gun Control’s Racist History

Interestingly enough, the same people who claim to care about ‘the children’ but whole heartily support Planned Parenthood are the same folks who want to deprive the people of their basic human rights. Who would have thought that was the case?


Continue Reading

NOQ Report Daily






Copyright © 2017 NOQ Report.