Christian Cake Baker's Second Lawsuit Can Go Forward, Federal Judge Says

A Colorado baker who already won a U.S. Supreme Court case may proceed with a second lawsuit claiming the state of Colorado is again wrongly prosecuting him, this time for declining to bake a cake celebrating a “gender transition,” a federal court ruled Friday.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, was plaintiff in a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision that ruled he was wrongfully prosecuted for declining to bake a cake marking a same-sex wedding ceremony on the grounds that doing so would violate his religious beliefs.

While the state of Colorado has tried to argue that the federal courts should dismiss a second lawsuit against members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a federal judge did not agree.

Jim Campbell, senior counsel with the legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, argued on behalf of Phillips before the U.S. District Court.

“The same agency that the Supreme Court rebuked as hostile to Jack Phillips has remained committed to treating him unequally and forcing him to express messages that violate his religious beliefs,” Campbell said Jan. 7.

“Colorado is acting in bad faith and with bias toward Jack,” Campbell continued. “We look forward to moving forward with this lawsuit to ensure that Jack isn’t forced to create custom cakes that express messages in conflict with his faith.”

The argument often heard is that the business discriminated against homosexuals by denying them a service anyone else could obtain. However, the business did not discriminate against homosexuals by denying them a service “anyone else could obtain,” which is supported by the facts. No one could obtain a agreement to create and provide a cake for a known immoral purpose, including straight person asking for one for a homosexual wedding or a divorce, etc.. Since the denial would have been given to a straight or LBGT person who wanted the same service, the business did not discriminate against homosexuals by denying them a service anyone else could obtain. The homosexual couple could have obtained a wedding cake for a traditional marriage, which is what the baker provided wedding cakes for, but they would not be able to obtain one for a homosexual “marriage” any more than a straight person could or they could obtain non-kosher meat from a kosher butcher, no matter if the customer defined it as being the same. It is true that you can argue discrimination against homosexuals by not not recognizing their union as valid and thus not facilitating the celebration of it. And yet the CO state constitution (of 2012) did the same by not recognizing homosexual marriage as a valid marriage and thus not providing legal status for it. But in a similar case, the Ireland supreme court recognized that a cake with writing on it, as well as providing a special "wedding cake" sends a message. It unanimously ruled in favor of a Christian bakery who denied a gay activist a cake with writing on it that said, “support gay marriage,” and invoked SCOTUS in recognizing that providing a wedding cake was conveying a particular message. And the the acquitting factor in both cases being that it was the message itself that was the cause for the denial of service, irrespective of how/what the person was, though that was the reason the respective customers wanted the cake. "The important message from the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is that there is a clear distinction between refusing to produce **a cake conveying a particular message**, for any customer who wants such a cake, and refusing to produce a cake [conveying a particular message] for the particular customer who wants it because of that customer’s characteristics.” "The bakery would have refused to supply this particular cake to anyone, whatever their personal characteristics." - UK's top court: Refusing to make cake with 'Support Gay Marriage' slogan not discrimination In order words, if Masterpiece had denied the two homsoexuals any service then that would clearly be straight-forward discrimination against homosexuals, but denying them a contract to provide a cake based upon what they wanted it for meant that the baker was being compelled (via fines etc.) contrary to his beliefs to provide such, which have a certain degree of protection. The state can require a business owner to provide something contrary to his beliefs, but whether it will, whether this outweighs protection against religious discrimination, is the legal issue. Can a bakery state it will not provide specific products or a service that are for the explicit expressed purpose of celebrating something it considers immoral, from man-animal weddings to a KKK graduation, or (on the other hand) a bi=racial marriage? But what should be conceded is that by agreeing to create and provide a very costly cake for the expressed purpose of celebrating a wedding the baker would be complicit in this celebration by willingly, knowingly facilitating it. And Christians of conscience will continue to refuse to provide products for the explicit expressed purpose of celebrating something it considers immoral,

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.