The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 167 - The Continued Persecution Of A Christian Baker

Episode Date: December 21, 2018

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop is back in court. This time for refusing to bake a “gender transition” cake. Why won’t the LGBT lobby leave this guy alone? Also, should there be a maximum age limit for the presidency? Finally, what is the worst Christmas song of all time? Date: 12-21-2018 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, the Christian Baker, who won in the Supreme Court, is being targeted again by the LGBT lobby. They just won't leave this guy alone. Also, how old is too old for the presidency? We'll talk about that. And what is the worst Christmas song of all time? We all know the answer, but we're going to, I'll reveal that anyway today on the Matt Wall Show. So you remember Jack Phillips. I've talked about him on the show plenty of times. I think he's one of the great heroes of, religious liberty in modern times. And I don't think that's an exaggeration. Well, the vengeful, spiteful bullies of the LGBT lobby will not leave this guy alone. They just can't. And so the owner of the masterpiece cake shop, you know, he had the audacity to beat them in the Supreme Court after he refused to make a cake for a gay wedding. Well, he refused to customize a cake for a gay wedding several years ago, ends up in

the Supreme Court, as you know, and he won there. And that victory has not gone unpunished. So now, it's important as we follow this saga. We follow the next chapter in this saga of Jack Phillips versus the LGBT bullies. It's important to really pay attention because this gives you, it shows you how the LGBT lobby operates. It gives you a very clear look at their methods. And it's a, it is a, it's a pretty disturbing picture. So backing up for, a moment. Jack Phillips is back in court this week, this time for declining to bake a cake celebrating a man's gender transition, his so-called gender transition, quote unquote. And a federal judge said this week that he is inclined to let the case, absurd as it is, go forward, which perhaps

will lead eventually to masterpiece cake shop the sequel, debuting at the Supreme Court within it within a couple of years maybe. Now, if you recall, the Supreme Court, they smacked down the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its despicable treatment of Phillips last time around, but it doesn't seem that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has learned its lesson or taken the lesson to heart, because here we are again. So here's the background on this case. In June of 2017, on the same day that Supreme Court announced that it would be taking Phillips's case, his previous case, a lawyer named Autumn Scardina called a masterpiece asking for a cake to celebrate the anniversary of his so-called transition into a woman. Okay. Now Phillips, of course, politely declined.

Scardina immediately contacted the Civil Rights Commission and the petty despots of the commission quickly decreed that he had committed a human rights violation. My understanding of the case is that the man who called, he wanted a blue cake with, you know, a cake with blue icing that's pink inside. You wanted a blue exterior, pink interior to celebrate his gender transition. From what I've read, he didn't ask for any words on the cake. So he didn't ask for the cake to say, happy gender transition day or whatever. So that, of course, raises a question of how would you? Jack Phillips have known that the cake was for a gender transition.

If you just call asking for a cake that's blue outside, pink inside, it's not like Jack Phillips is going to say, now wait a second, is this to celebrate a gender transition? No, you could have just asked for the stupid cake and not said what it's for. It wouldn't have been a problem. So how did Jack Phillips know? Well, it must be because Scardina volunteered that information for no reason. Or there was a reason. what's the reason? Well, obviously, the entire thing was nothing but an utterly transparent

setup. Scardina, who had previously harassed Masterpiece Cakesop with requests for cakes with satanic imagery, he wanted cakes with sex toys. This time he called on that particular day, this is a lawyer, remember, so he's aware of Supreme Court cases. On that particular day, he calls, and he calls obviously for the express purpose. of being denied. He wants to be denied the cake. There clearly is no other reason to tell a baker that the pink and blue cake is meant to celebrate a gender transition. There's no reason to do that. And of course, a cake to celebrate a gender transition, which happened, by the way, years ago, is a bizarre and arbitrary occasion for a cake anyway. But if for some reason a person really did want a

cake for that purpose and genuinely felt the need to announce it to the person behind the counter at the bakery, there's no legitimate or honest reason to choose the one bakery in the whole country that's famous for having qualms about these kinds of things. So Scardina, the lawyer, is a bully and a harasser and nothing more. No rational person believes that his request was made in good faith. and even if it was, which I emphasize again, it was not. But even if it was, a business owner has the right to decline to lend his labor and his skill to a celebration of genital mutilation. Now, Phillips's lawyers, Jack Phillips's lawyers, they've argued that his belief in the biological nature of sex is a religious conviction, and it may well be.

And perhaps that's the best legal framing, so that's why they're putting it that way. But it's also a rational, scientific, intellectual conviction as well. You don't need to be religious to believe that a man is a man and a woman's a woman. So a man should be no more forced to violate his reason than he should be forced to violate his religion. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission wants him to violate both. And they are going along with an obvious setup concocted by a guy who had previously asked, previously asked for a cake featuring an actual working model of a dildo, his words, they're going along with that guy in order to make their point.

So this is straightforward persecution. This is a government agency seeking to destroy a private citizen for his personal beliefs and nothing more. And the bureaucrats behind this campaign have obviously now officially forfeited the claim that they're really seeking equality or tolerance or whatever, because they know, like we all do, that Phillips is being railroaded here, and there aren't even any hurt feelings for them to worry about. Not that hurt feelings matter,

but Scardina's feelings weren't even hurt. With the other case, maybe the gay men who were turned down, no, I think that was a setup also, but if it wasn't, then maybe their feelings were legitimately hurt. That doesn't matter. Who cares? That's not important. you're allowed to hurt people's feelings in America.

But in this case, you don't even have that to hang your hat on. This guy got exactly what he wanted, which was to not get what he asked for. He's a conniving, scheming fraud, and so are the despots in the commission. No matter your ideological leanings, you should be absolutely opposed to this. You should be outraged by it. This is just a government agency persecuting a private citizen. and you should be against that, even if you hate everything that Jack Phillips stands for. And I feel the need to clarify, once again, something that, you know, I've made this point many times,

and I doubt that this next reiteration will make any difference whatsoever, but I'm going to say it anyway. This case and all of these kinds of cases have nothing to do with business owners discriminating against certain classes of people. or certain demographics of people. In other words, just because you support Phillips's right to decline to make a certain kind of cake doesn't mean you would or must or should support his right to decline to serve a certain race or ethnicity. There is a huge difference between Phillips and a racist business owner who declines or denies service to black people.

So that comparison makes no sense. It doesn't hold up. It's not the same thing. There's a huge difference between the two things. It's not at all the same. In one case, the business owner is just saying, we don't want to lend our services or our product to this particular event. We don't want to promote this particular idea or belief,

but we're happy to serve you as a person. In the other hand, on the other hand, the business owner is saying, we don't want to serve you as a person. Doesn't matter what the product is. Doesn't matter what the event is. It's you as a person, as a black person, or whatever that we are refusing to serve.

Those are two completely different things. If Jack Phillips had said, you're a gay couple, you're not welcome in this establishment, that would be one thing. But that's not what he said. In fact, he said, you can buy whatever you want here. You're welcome to buy whatever you want. I just can't customize a cake specifically for a gay wedding. I'll customize a cake for your birthday, for Halloween, for whatever you want.

Or in fact, well, actually, he doesn't do Halloween cakes because he doesn't, which is another good point, that Jack Phillips is the particular kind of Christian that is opposed to Halloween, so he doesn't make Halloween cakes. that's an event. Is he discriminating against people who celebrate Halloween? No, he just, that's just, he doesn't believe in it. I believe in Halloween. I believe in Halloween. I'm fine with Halloween.

I don't have any problem with Halloween. So if I went to Jack Phillips and I said, can you make a cake for Halloween? And he said, no, I wouldn't say I'm being discriminated against. I would say, well, this is a guy that just has a problem with this particular event. Fine. I'll go to one of the other 50,000 different baker. or stores where I can go to get this kind of cake. So there's a difference between that and refusing to serve a certain kind of person.

Now, as it happens, I do believe that business owners have the right or should have the right to deny service to anyone for any reason. So, yes, if it were up to me, I would let a racist business owner deny service to black people. I would let a business owner hang a sign in the window saying, we don't serve black people here, black people not welcome. I would allow that if it were up to me. It's his business, it's his labor, it's his property, it's his. It's not societies.

It's not the customers. It's not the collectives. It's not the countries. It's not the governments. It's his. And if he wants to destroy his business overnight by hanging a no blacks allowed sign in the window, so be it. He'll be bankrupt within 12 hours. That's his loss.

You're great at protecting your data, but lots of places could still expose you to identity theft. I thought it was safe. If that happens, LifeLock gives you a U.S.-based restoration agent who will stick by your side from start to finish. Phone calls, filing documentation, preparing insurance claims, your agent handles it all. In fact, we're so confident

restoration is guaranteed, pour your money back. Isn't it nice to have someone like that on your side? Save up to 40% your first year at lifelock.com slash Spotify. Terms apply. I mean, if you're against racism, you should be fine with that.

You should say, yeah, all the racist business owners, go ahead. Advertise your racism, and then you'll be finished. You're not going to have a business anymore. The market will punish you. Now, 50, 60 years ago, it would have been different in a lot of places in the country. So maybe that's a different case. But these days, there is just nowhere in the country where you could get away with being an openly racist business owner, denying service to everyone except white people. You couldn't possibly get away with that without going out of business immediately.

and so fine, the market will take care of it, the market will punish you as well it should. Besides, if you're patronizing an establishment that's run by someone who hates your guts because of your race, wouldn't you like to know it so you can patronize somewhere else? So that's the way that should work, in my opinion, but that has nothing again to do with the masterpiece cake. They are completely different. it is perfectly possible and perfectly reasonable, perfectly consistent to take a less libertarian view than I do on the general issue of businesses denying services to people while at the same time supporting Phillips. So you could take the position that, no, it should be, it should not be allowed, you should not be allowed to deny service to people based on race or ethnicity or whatever. Yet, I still think that Phillips had the right to do what he did.

That's a perfectly consistent position as well, because they're not. not the same thing. All right. Now I turn to a story that hasn't got as much attention as some of the other events of the week. This is from the Daily Wire. It says the Trump administration announced on Thursday that it would move to make sure able-bodied Americans work to receive food stamp benefits, which the U.S. Department of Agriculture said it could save billions of dollars in taxpayer money each year.

The Agriculture Department unveiled expanded work requirements. in the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, SNAP, according to the proposed rule, those who are able-bodied adults without dependence would need to work at least 20 hours per week up to age 59 in order to receive government assistance. And the Agriculture Department said that this is meant to make it so that this is an assistance, a system of assistance,

not a way of life, not breeding a lifelong dependency and so on. And this is exactly the right approach. I think that President Trump should be commended here. It's fair. It's compassionate. To encourage people to work is compassionate. Now, some people think somehow it's cruel to expect people to work. Expect them to contribute.

But the opposite is really the case. It isn't good for a person to be dependent. It's bad for the soul. It's bad for your well-being as a human being. Work is good for the soul. A person needs to feel like they're chipping in and they're taking part and they're contributing. So like they're doing something in life. So this is not only fair to the taxpayers who are funding this system, but I think it's also the fairest and most compassionate thing for the individuals involved.

So I just wanted to mention that. I think that's a good thing. What else? Okay, very briefly, according to some recent polling, Joe Biden is the Democrat frontrunner for the nomination. in 2020. Now, Joe Biden, if he won, he would be 78 when he's sworn in. 78 years old. That would make him 82 at the end of his term. And if he won again, he'd be 86 upon leaving office if he survives that long, which is no guarantee because the life expectancy for men, I think, is 84 years old.

I mean, 78 is just crazy. Okay, 78 would be old for a Pope. When you're Pope old, then you're super old. President old is like late 60s, early 70s. Pope old is when you're pushing 80. Late 60s for a Pope is young. That's Pope Young. 80 is Pope old.

So, you know, I really think that there are many reasons to be opposed to the idea of Joe Biden being president. But before you get to any of that, he's just too old. old. 78 is too. At a certain point, nobody is immortal. At a certain point, your body and your mind start to slow down. And that happens to everyone in their 70s, certainly by your late 70s. Now, I know you might say, oh, my grandmother is 87 years old and she's still sharp as a tech. Yeah, I don't deny that she is, but she certainly, she has certainly slowed down from what she used to be. Everyone does. It happens to everyone unless you die before that. So it's not a not. on older people. It's just the reality of the situation. The idea that we have a 78-year-old man

doing the most stressful job in the country is just absurd. Think about how much the presidency age as a person. Look at like a picture of George Bush in 2000 versus George Bush in 2008, or Obama in 2016. It just ages you. It's like when you're in the presidency, it's like you're on dog years, you know, every year is seven years. So the wear and tear and everything, it's just ridiculous. If we have a, if we have an age minimum for the presidency of 35, then shouldn't there be an age maximum? Wouldn't it make sense to say that, you know, going forward, you can't be older, any older than 70 when you first enter office. Now, if you enter office at 70, You know, then you're in.

And so maybe then if you, we could, we could think of what the rule will be. But maybe for your first run or for your first term, you can't be any older than 70. If you win a term, then you can run for reelection. But I really think it's time to consider something like that. I mean, the Democrats are looking at having Bernie Sanders, I think, would be around 78 as well. So they're looking at having just between the two of them. that's that's over 150 they'd be over 150 years old between the two of them it's just crazy in my opinion all right last thing as we get ready for christmas this will be my last show until until the new

year so i thought before we end things for christmas i just wanted to uh and this is a discussion every year around this time we start talking about what are the worst and what are the best and what are best Christmas songs. Now, as far as the best Christmas songs, I think, I think there are dozens of really good Christmas songs. It's hard for me to choose between them. Oh come, O'Cum, Emanuel is technically an Advent song, but if I can count that, that's my personal favor. But there are many great, Silent Night is a, is a, joy to the world. It's a great Christmas song. But as far as the worst Christmas songs, I want to go down, here, here's my top 10 list of the worst Christmas songs, number one being the absolute worst. Okay, let's just go through

these very briefly. These are the songs that should be banished, abolished legally. You should be legally prevented from playing them, from listening to them, from performing them, in my opinion. So, number 10, wonderful Christmas time, Paul McCartney. Number nine, Christmas Shoes, is an absolutely terrible song for many reasons, but the emotional manipulation of this song is just, this is a song,

it's about a guy who's, I mean, you've heard it, but the guy's in line the day before Christmas at a store and there's a kid in front of them buying shoes

for his mother who's dying of cancer. It's just a, it's just so emotionally manipulative and sappy. It's a terrible song. So number 10, Wonderful Christmas Time. Number nine, Christmas shoes.

Number eight, Wonderful Christmas Time. number seven, do they know it's Christmas? Number six, wonderful Christmas time. Number five, Felice Navidad. Number four, wonderful Christmas time. Number three, all I want for Christmas is you. Number two, wonderful Christmas time.

And number one, the absolute worst Christmas song in existence is, you guessed it, wonderful Christmas time. That is wonderful Christmas time is not only the worst Christmas song by a mile, but it is arguably the worst song that has been recorded in at least the last 200 years, probably in human history. And the thing is, I think we all agree on that. Have you ever met anyone who likes that song? No, we all hate that song.

And yet it appears on the radio. You hear it at the department stores. If for some reason you go to a department store rather than just buying everything online, we can't escape it even though everybody hates it. So maybe it's time that we all just move on from that song, which we all hate. And then we can truly actually have a wonderful Christmas time. All right. So I hope you guys all have a blessed Christmas.

And I'll talk to you, as I said, after the new year. God bless. Merry Christmas. Godspeed. And the frog also says Merry Christmas as well. Coming up on the Ben Shapiro Show, General Jim Mattis quit, his secretary of defense. President Trump initiates DefCon 1 on a government shutdown, and the stock market tumbles. Again, all that coming up on the Ben Shapiro show.