Posted on 07/29/2014 8:14:09 AM PDT by xzins
LAKEWOOD, Colo. -- Imagine being ordered to go against your religious beliefs, and if you refuse, you could be arrested, fined, or sued.
That happened to the Christian owner of a Colorado bakery who now must make wedding cakes for gay couples.
However, the owner is standing his ground and his action is inspiring people around the world.
Discriminating Accusation
The sign on the door reads "Celebrating 20 Years of Great Cakes!" For two decades, Masterpiece Cakeshop has created art in the form of baked goods that keeps customers coming back.
From cookies and cupcakes to signature cakes, Jack Phillips and his daughter Lisa have transformed their bakery into a studio. Phillips said it's all inspired and motivated by his faith in Jesus Christ.
"It's the most important thing that I think about throughout the day. When I wake up, when I go to work, I want to know that what I'm doing is pleasing to Him, that I honor Him and His Word because that's the most important thing," Phillips said.
But Phillips' Christian faith landed him in trouble with the law. His crime: adhering to his biblical belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.
In 2012, a homosexual couple sued the baker after he declined to make a cake to celebrate their marriage. An administrative law judge ruled against him, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission agreed.
The commission stated Phillips' refusal went against the state's public accommodation law. It requires businesses to serve customers regardless of their sexual orientation.
In a public statement, one member of the Civil Rights Commission said, "I can believe anything I want, but if I'm going to do business here, I'd ought to not discriminate against people."
"I didn't discriminate against anybody," Phillips countered. "Like Nicolle (his attorney) said, I've chosen not to make cakes for same-sex weddings. I told David and Charlie when they came in that I would sell them cookies and brownies and birthday cakes and shower cakes. I just don't do the same-sex wedding cake. So I did not discriminate against them, just that event I've chosen not to participate in."
His attorney Nicolle Martin said the Commission violated his First Amendment rights. She's taken the case to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
Conform to Comply
The Civil Rights Commission's order requires Phillips and his staff to make cakes for same-sex celebrations if asked.
He must also re-educate his staff about Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act. Under that law, artists must endorse all views.
The order also requires him to put in place new policies to comply with the Commission's order.
In addition, he will submit quarterly "compliance" reports to the government for two years.
According to Alliance Defending Freedom, the reports must include the number of customers declined a wedding cake or any other product. They must also include why it was declined "so to ensure he has fully eliminated his religious beliefs from his business."
"The government has chosen which message it favors in this case; I think the state has made it very clear," Martin said.
"Jack's First Amendment rights, Jack's freedom to express himself or more importantly, not express himself, must bow to the complainants' message," she said. "And all I can say is what that looks like to me is something very frightening, and that's nothing more than diversity through conformity, and that's not diversity at all," she added.
First Amendment Disappearing?
Phillips' case is one of a handful in which complainants sued private businesses for refusing to accommodate gay couples getting married.
It also helped lead to controversial proposals in several states allowing businesses to decline service based on the religious beliefs of owners.
"This case is not about and it has never been about the young men that came in here almost two years ago asking Jack to design and create their cake," Martin said. "This case has always been about the message that that cake expresses, what that cake communicates."
"It's surprising," Phillips said. "This is not what they taught us in civics class... they could do this to you. They do this in other countries, not here."
"So Jack stands on the First Amendment. In this case, we're going to learn whether the First Amendment has a future in America," Martin said.
In a country founded on freedom of religion and speech, that's a future important to all Americans
If this ruling stands (and I don’t believe it will), will our right to Christian worship be next?
It should be patently obvious that this “gay” couple intentionally targeted this bakery (it’s not as if it was the ONLY bakery in town) and they went there knowing they would be denied and they could make a federal case out of it. Opening a business shouldn’t cause you to lose your freedom of religion and speech or any other freedoms we are guaranteed by the Constitution. I hope the family prevails in court and refuses to be cowed by the bully gay mafia! Someone has to stand up to them.
Therein lies the problem. sigh
You miss the point, it isn't about cake.
It doesn’t matter that it’s an order. This wedding cake incident happened a year or more ago when gay wedding was clearly illegal in Colorado....and that still hasn’t been overturned.
Talk about re-education. This is what the Feds were going to do at Oak Ridge.
That is current and amazing.
You should post it as a thread on extended news.
I would like to, but I will be gone today. I am out to do some things for my 88 year old parents.
Busy day
Possibly.
I did just outline how it majorly violated the State's own Constitution three ways.
Do you not think this would eventually happen in a human government where Repubs. held two or even three branches of gov’t?
....”Do you not think this would eventually happen in a human government where Repubs. held two or even three branches of gov’t?”......
Well, first of all our government is human so I’m not sure what your referencing there.
But yes, it could happen even if the majority of our branches were all Republicans....because the trajectory congress, on both sides, is taking this country is toward Global Governance. It’s one thing to have this over trade and business...but even then you will have regulatory matters of great difference...such as what countries regulations will they adopt. But it’s not going to stop at trade....Insurances and Banking and such will all come under that umbrella.....and eventually so to the religions will be represented. There’s too much money flowing to not have them in it....
He will probably lose. Jack entered a contract with several government agencies. He obtained a business license, he pays SSI taxes, etc...
A license is a permit to do that which is otherwise forbidden, and in his entry into the “benefits” of being a good corporate government employee, he’s required to follow the rules they make, however arbitrary they may be.
Perhaps they should have made a cake resembling a steaming pile of cow dung.
Hobby Lobby didn’t lose. The justices currently in the majority decided that a business can have beliefs, and in this case it sounds like a closely held corporation or sole proprietorship or something like that.
The authorities will want this to be a case about discrimination against a class of people. They’ll say that opening doors for business implies equal treatment of all.
The owner will see it as a case of freedom of speech and religious freedom, that he doesn’t discriminate against anyone. First, he doesn’t do things that violate his faith...his religious belief is real and long-standing. And, second, he shouldn’t be forced to produce things that are by their nature a violation of his faith. Third, as an artist, his art is a manner of speech, so he shouldn’t be forced to violate his free speech by being forced to speak things he doesn’t want to speak.
The justices will look to see if the government has a truly substantial reason for actually violating the owner’s faith and speech. The Religious Freedom Act says the government must have a truly pressing reason for doing so. In this case, maintaining order and equal treatment in the market place will be seen as a substantial reason.
Then they’ll look at whether this is the least action they could have taken considering that the owner truly does have speech and religious rights that are being set aside.
That’s where I think the owner has a case. I think ‘capitulate or close” is not the least restrictive action they could have taken. I don’t think they even tried to find a way to accommodate his religion and speech rights.
They could have ordered him only regarding wedding cakes...that he stop offering those. (A conclusion he came to himself, I believe.) They could have instructed him to operate as a ‘members only club’ in which any patron had to join and sign off on a statement of principles. They could have instructed him that as a non-profit Christian ministry, his profit after expenses going to some religious cause, his goods available in the same way that monesteries sell cake, ale, etc., that he would be out of jeopardy.
These are just ideas off the top of my head, but I don’t think ‘capitulate or close’ is the least restrictive answer at which they could have arrived.
Then you are blind.
Spoken like a true unabashed STATIST.
The government cannot implement rules that violate a person's first amendment rights nor can they implement rules that are arbitrary or capricious.
Further the government cannot command you to perform acts which violate your religious beliefs unless there is a compelling reason to do so.
Making a wedding cake is Art. Just as an artist cannot be forced to paint a picture of Satan pissing on a cross, a cake baker cannot be forced to use his artistic talents to create a cake that "celebrates" an unholy union.
I only wish that someone from Westboro Babtist Church would go into a homosexual cake baker and ask them to bake them a cake for one of their weddings with the words "GOD HATES FAGS" prominently displayed on the cake.
You seem to think that being granted a business license by an all powerful totalitarian state is a contract to surrender your God Given liberties. It isn't. It would be the same thing as if a newspaper dedicated to reporting on Christian events was required to report on non-Christian events or even required to accept advertising from pornography or liquor distributors.
Sometimes I am amazed at some of the neo-statist comments I see on Free Republic. Here is a forum where we are dedicated to fighting against tyranny and yet we have posters here who defend it. Amazing.
Amen! Fight BIG GOVERNMENT!
Personally, I think businesses should just be left alone. If they make a dumb business decision, then they’ll suffer. And if one succeeds being a bigoted place, then that means where you do end up going won’t have all the bigots. They’ll be down the road at the other place.
Let them rise or fall based on their business decisions.
This bakery will find a way not to bake gay wedding cakes, and apparently, the owner is such an exceptional artist, that he will succeed.
Just leave him alone.
I’m describing how the STATE will argue the case.
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.