Posted on 05/30/2014 10:48:24 PM PDT by dignitasnews
The Civil Rights Commission of Colorado ruled Friday that baker Jack Philips 1st Amendment rights to free exercise of his religious beliefs may in fact be prohibited. In a decision sure to be challenged, they ruled Philips must participate in same-sex wedding celebrations by ordering him to accept any custom orders wedding cakes from same-sex couples. The Colorado ruling on the pro gay-marriage cake begs the question as to whether or not their definitions of civil rights go both ways (pun intended).
Let us consider if the roles in the case were somehow reversed. How would rule if a self-described advocate for heterosexuality were to enter the bakery owned by a homosexual and requested a custom-made cake inscribed either a Bible verse supporting the sole legitimacy of traditional marriage or wording of similar effect? If we base their ruling on their intellectual interpretation of law, one could only assume they would likewise force the gay baker to take the order and bake the cake. But of course, there are a number of questionable points of their ruling to suggest it was made from an emotional standpoint, their motivations based on the sympathy of the plaintiffs and not the law itself. It is this which is the truly dangerous aspect of decision, far beyond any moral arguments related to same-sex couplings.
What is important to consider is that what the gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, were requesting from Philips was a custom order. Had the couple walked into his store and requested a set of candles, a previously prepared pastry or any other standard product he had displayed and been denied this request, there is a more than a valid argument to say that their civil rights were in fact violated. But this was not the case.Based on the transcripts of the case, Philips had indicated to the two men that "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings."Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Upon hearing this, Mullins stated that as they walked out the door he turned to Philips and said, "F- (expletive) you and your homophobic cakeshop." They then provocatively sought out assistance, aware that Philips decision was based on his devout religious beliefs, to spark a legal and public relations battle. Without placing judgement on the two's sexual orientation whatsoever, David Mullins and Charlie Craig are, in my humble opinion, two very hateful, petty and reprehensible human beings.
That gay marriage remains illegal in Colorado further draws legitimate questions to the motives behind the Colorado Civil Rights Commissions decision. The marriage of Mullins and Craig was sanctioned in the state of Massachusetts, while they planned to celebrate the event in their home state of Colorado. Thus, the panel ruled that Philips must bake a cake for an event that is illegal in the state of Colorado and that had previously taken place. In addition, they ordered Philips to report quarterly for anti-discrimination training for his bakery staff and file a report on any customers he discriminates against.
Philips, who owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, defiantly fired back following the ruling, "I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down." Based on the comments made by Commissioner Raju Jaram, "I can believe anything I want, but if I'm going to do business here, I'd ought to not discriminate against people," this sadly may come to pass.
The truth of he matter is that private business, and government for that matter, discriminate on many occasions when choosing whether or not to engage in certain matters of commerce. Again, Mr. Philips did not refuse to engage in commerce with Mullins and Craig, but rather objected to taking a specific specialty-order contract.
Previously in my career, I worked for a self-publishing company who maintained a strict code of the sort of material we would endorse and publish. While we would not turn any author away out of hand, there was certain material we felt did not represent our code of ethics as well as on grounds that it may harm our reputation within the marketplace. Subjects we considered to be racist, sexually provocative or generally unseemly would be rejected by our editorial board, despite that they may have been opinions and practices in no way illegal. Should that same author present material that did not run counter to our guidelines these projects would be accepted without regard or prejudice.
Advertisers and marketing firms make these sort of decisions on a regular basis as well. Would Colorado force an advertising agency owned by a dedicated member of PETA to produce a public relations campaign for a group that organized legal hunting junkets for its clientele? Should the gay owner of a printing company be forced to produce a 100-foot banner declaring that homosexuality is a sin before God for a religious group whose interpretation of scripture maintains this belief? Of course not. And no right-minded conservative would for one moment side with a government that wished to place this burden on a business owner.
Personal beliefs aside, the Colorado ruling makes no consideration for the reputation and future solvency of the bakery in question. Just as in our examples of the pro-animal advertising agency or gay printer, the conservative position is sensitive to the business owners primary customer base. Should that printer depend on the gay community for much of his regular revenue, by forcing him to produce a perceived anti-gay banner, the future of his or her business would then be placed in jeopardy.
Just as we all do, the gay community has a responsibility to the notion of domestic tranquility. In large part they have allowed the "gay rights movement" to be usurped by political progressives, who seem hell-bent on a "scorched earth" policy of attacking the livelihood of all who disagree with them. Be it the baker Philips, former Mozilla CEO Brendan Eich or the Benham brothers, left-wing progressives and their allies within the gay community threaten to open Pandora's Box and tear this nation asunder due to their unwillingness to practice the same tolerance they expect from the nation at large. If this modus-operandi were to be mimicked by other political factions, we would end with a society where those donating to pro-choice and pro-life groups alike, pro and anti 2nd Amendment advocates and pretty much anyone with a political opinion would find their professional careers in jeopardy.
Ironically enough, one of the best arguments for the radical intolerance from the progressive wing of the gay community (as well as voice of reason) this year came from RuPaul herself who went on a Twitter rampage earlier in the week, bemoaning what has become of the gay-rights movement. In two very poignant and prophetic tweets, she warned the gay community to guard against its own hubris, echoing what many conservatives have observed that while they may be celebrating "gotcha" moments by bringing the heavy hand of the state down on a humble small-business owner, they run risk of reversing the overall gains they have made in society as well providing the perfect analogy for the hypocrisy of the progressive-left, not just in regards to issues of the gay community, but its entire political agenda. We applaud not only RuPaul's courage, as the retaliation from the left has already begun, but cannot help but admire anyone who understand that Animal Farm (although note to RuPaul that it's Farmer Jones, not John but point well-made nonetheless) was meant to be Orwell's warning to us all about the dangers of government tyranny, and not a training manual as so many on the political left appear to view it as.
Most conservatives would defend the gay baker's right to deny taking an order to inscribe a cake with anti-gay slogans with the same zeal as we will the Christian baker who refuses to do the gay marriage cake. This is what we call consistency, a concept apparently lost on the left, be they gay or straight. If the gay community cannot understand this, nay agree with us, then I do hold out much hope that we can work effectively with one another. And while the progressive-left may be celebrating Colorado's ruling that a Christian baker must take on a custom-ordered gay wedding cake tonight, it opens Pandora's Box which the gay community may ultimately come to regret.
By Paul M Winters
Sources:
MSNNews MSNBC @RuPaul (via Twitter)
I wonder who the court would side with if the bakery had been owned by a Muslim?
I’m sorry - but, when you decide to operate a “fee-for-service” business in the public arena, you must serve everyone.
However, you do have a choice - provide the service, or close the business. It is black letter law.
In the example in the article - it would work both ways for both the heterosexual and the homosexual.
Otherwise, it would be akin to refusing to serve blacks at the lunch counter ...
If I owned a bakery I wouldn't make a cake with a swastika on it either.
Sure you are required to serve black people at your Woolworth's but you shouldn't be forced to make something custom made, if it's not on the menu no matter how much it was "demanded".
Gimme an ice cream cone with 8 scoops!
Sorry, we don't make those.
You HAVE to, I'm black!
I can offer you a triple scoop cone, any flavors.
Not good enough, I'm suing!
Bullshit. You wouldn't have to serve the Ku Klux Klan or the Nazi Party. Hell, I'll bet you wouldn't have to serve the Tea party, and if you were muslim, you wouldn't have to serve homos.
Some animals are more equal than others.
Actually, you do. The Klan and the American Nazi Party hold rallies frequently and are not prohibited based upon free speech grounds.
If I were to dress in Klan garb, go into a bakery and get refused - I'd win the court case ...
Ah, jeez, nobody seems to care what the actual issue is.
The faggots could go in an be served with any item offered. What they demanded was a custom item. if a Klanster demanded a swastika cake, he would be refused and not a court in the land would back him.
I just know I will have to explain this again and again, probably to the same people.
If this is like the New Mexico case, it was the MESSAGE that was declined. We do not inscribe to “gay marriages.” Had a nun come in and asked for such a thing she’d get refused too.
Otherwise, it would be akin to refusing to serve blacks at the lunch counter ...
Not even close. The people who refused blacks at their lunch counters could not cite Biblical or constitutional reasons.
Many people care. This rabble rouser does not.
Tell that to the Muzzie cab drivers who refuse to drive customers with alcohol.
Sometimes I think I am at DU.
Trolllllllz.
I saw the quote:
“I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”
It doesn't say he makes traditional wedding cakes - but, I bet he does. And if it includes names - then it is a "custom" order. This is in direct contradiction to him saying that he doesn't make "custom" order wedding cakes [traditional, same-sex, or otherwise] ...
No need to be snippy about it - not a troll. Just happen to disagree with you on this issue.
“I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings” - Seeing as Same sex weddings are not legal in this state his statement is true. Even if he wanted to make cake for same sex weddings he could not as there is legally no such thing in this state. Who is this guys’ lawyer? How is he denying them anything or discriminating - he did not say I don’t sell cakes to gay people.
What is namely the service? Too provide a cake? Or to provide a "wedding cake" ? I think there is a distinction. In the second case the question naturally presents itself, "What is a wedding?"
RuPaul herself??
That is a man!
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.