Credit: Alex Grichenko (CC0 1.0).
Posted on 08/13/2015 3:08:52 PM PDT by NYer
.- A Colorado baker has lamented the Colorado Court of Appeals’ ruling handed down Thursday that he illegally discriminated when he declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop said that in his view the ruling means that the court created an exception to the First Amendment that wrongly affects his family-run bakery.
“You’re entitled to believe, but not entitled to act on those beliefs,” he said in an Aug. 13 statement.
“You’re not free if your beliefs are confined to your mind,” Phillips objected. “What makes America unique is our freedom to peacefully live out these beliefs.”
He had appealed the decision of Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission that he violated the state’s anti-discrimination law when he declined to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
The unanimous Aug. 13 ruling from the Colorado Court of Appeals said, “discrimination on the basis of one’s opposition to same-sex marriage is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
The ruling rejected the cake shop’s other defenses, including its stated willingness to serve gay and lesbian customers who requested birthday cakes, cookies, and other “non-wedding cake products.”
Phillips’ bakery in Lakewood, Colorado no longer bakes wedding cakes, after the civil rights commission ruled against his shop. In 2012, he had declined a request from two men who wanted him to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding reception. Phillips said making the cake would violate his religious beliefs. In response, the two men filed a legal complaint against him.
The civil rights commission ordered Phillips and his staff to undergo anti-discrimination training and to submit quarterly reports on how he is changing company policies.
Phillips has decided not to make any wedding cakes, his only legal option to continue his business without violating his beliefs.
At the time of the controversy, Colorado law did not recognize same-sex marriage. The Colorado appeals court cited the June 2015 decision mandating nationwide recognition of such unions, noting that the Supreme Court equated laws that preclude same-sex marriage to “discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”
Another Colorado man reacted to the ruling against the bakery by filing complaints against three other bakeries that refused to make his requested cakes, which included religious imagery and loosely paraphrased Biblical phrases about sin and homosexuality. His claims that these bakeries discriminated against him were rejected by the Civil Rights Division of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agencies.
That case was mentioned in the ruling against Masterpiece Cakes. The court said that the bakers “did not refuse the patron’s request because of his creed, but rather because of the offensive nature of the requested message.”
The court claimed that because the state anti-discrimination law forbids all businesses from discrimination, it is “unlikely that the public would view Masterpiece’s creation of a cake for a same-sex wedding celebration as an endorsement of that conduct” and a reasonable observer would consider that the behavior is not a reflection of its own beliefs.
Philips objected that the court’s logic mean different treatment for citizens who hold “government approved views on same-sex marriage” and those who do not.
According to the latest ruling, the law would bar the bakery from notifying customers that it refuses to provide services for a same-sex marriage, though the decision said the bakery could post a disclaimer saying that providing its services for such an event does not constitute an endorsement.
A strict application of state and local anti-discrimination laws and policies have begun to constrict the freedom of businesses and organizations with moral objections to homosexual acts and relationships.
Catholic-run adoption agencies in some states have been forced to close, because the law would require them to place children with same-sex couples against their religious beliefs.
Catholic ping!
I don’t read that the order was to make a beautiful cake, just a cake.
I guess Muslim taxi drivers will now be required to accommodate alcohol in taxis they drive?
I guess Jewish delis will now be required to serve non-kosher meats?
I do not recognize this country any longer....its' not the one t I grew up in.
Oh now the court deems whats offensive and whats not...speech codes!
Colorado just got struck off the list of potential retirement locations...
what about the Muslim baker that refused to bake a gay wedding cake? They get a free card?
Until the government again becomes sensible, and don’t hold your breath, the way around this problem is to legally avoid this problem.
1) At least for the time being, churches are exempt from this nonsense, that is, they do not have to marry homosexuals.
2) Business contract law is essential to the business community, so they will not tolerate the courts or state legislatures messing around with it.
3) So individuals who provide wedding services need to make *exclusive* contracts with a dozen or two churches in their area who do not marry homosexuals. Unless couples are married in one of those churches, they do not get a wedding cake, for example, because those cakes are exclusively provided, by contract, just for marriages in those churches.
4) The businesses can provide any secular products to the public, just not those related to marriage. While this also cuts out heterosexuals married in liberal churches and secular weddings, that’s tough. Importantly, if couples are willing to marry in a conservative church instead of a liberal one or having a secular marriage, it cuts the liberal churches out of the deal.
5) Contracts must provide tangible “consideration”, which means both parties get something out of the deal. In this case, the businesses would provide the churches a small fee in exchange for the churches recommending these businesses for couples who wish to get married.
Hey, if the Muslims took the gay guys out and stoned them - or beheaded them - the ACLU and the Justice Department would immediately come out in defense of this wholesome form of religious expression.
[[3) So individuals who provide wedding services need to make *exclusive* contracts with a dozen or two churches in their area who do not marry homosexuals. Unless couples are married in one of those churches, they do not get a wedding cake, for example, because those cakes are exclusively provided, by contract, just for marriages in those churches.]]
Excellent suggestion- one of the best I’ve seen yet- trying to see gthe downside- but it seems the gay groups will likely find loophole that ‘forbids’ the company from doing so- but notl ikely- Seems like your suggestion pretty much covers this situation
perhaps you could suggest this to the actual bakery if you can find an address
The only issue I have though is that they will end up losing business because some gay loving heteros will boycott the business- and in the end the gaystapo still wins a bit- but all in all it’s a win for the bakery and a solution whereby they are not forced to violate their conscience - just would be nice if for once the courts UPHELD our RIGHT not to violate our consciences via court order
Surely these court orders ARE a violation of constitional rights?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.