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)
Had they managed to get it to happen, they might have tossed it anyhow. They knew what they were doing.
Some people idolize law.
It is infinitely more realistic to recognize when law has become an ass, and seek to correct it as one has to correct an ass, if need be.
This sort of thing has come up, such as the family that gave three kids Aryan nation names whose children were ultimately taken away from the parents.
The bakery refused to make a birthday cake for a 3 year old with swastikas.
Quite so. They were not covered by special “civil rights” rules either for that purpose.
Law has gotten perverted, and for a smug mouth to parrot that perverted law back to us is to hire itself out to Satan. We already know there is no salvation in law. How about the Lord?
It seems to me that if the courts would just stay out of much of this stuff,the problem just might go away on it’s own. Ruling in discrimination situations can be a bottomless pit. Supposing Safeway decided to find me discriminatory when they find out I drove clear across town to buy my groceries elsewhere? Let’s just suppose I refuse to do business with a store/chain who has publicly expressed their support for certain groups of people & I don’t agree with their expressed opinions. This would or could get into a never-ending mess & I think court systems have more pressing problems.
Would a muslim baker produce a custom cake that said “Jesus is the Son of God”?
Would an atheist bake a custom cake with a verse from Psalm 14:1 “ The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.”
time for some expanded “public accommodation” test cases
There’s a point where, and the article makes this clear, where normal business operations cross the line into “art”, which is a form of protected expression.
Run of the mill baked goods don’t really cross that line. Specialties such as wedding cakes do. The baker has every Constitutional right to refuse to produce art that he disagrees with. To compel him do so is both a violation of the 1st Amendment AND the 13th’s prohibition on involuntary servitude.
Would an atheist bake a custom cake with a verse from Psalm 14:1 “ The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none who does good.”
time for some expanded “public accommodation” test cases
That is actually a very good question.
What if a couple of Christians walk into a bakery run by an atheist and pro-gay rights baker and wants to have a special sheet cake made for their anti-gay marriage rally? The cake would have Bible quotes on it and perhaps something like “Homos Are Evil”. And what if that baker told the Christian, “Sorry, I don’t want to make that cake, you need to go to another bakery shop”.
I’d like to think the Christians would do just that; go find another baker who is more than happy to decorate their cake as they want it, a Christian baker or even another baker was also an atheist and pro-gay marriage but quite frankly doesn’t care and was more than happy to make whatever they wanted and happy to take their money. And that’s what the gay couple should have done IMO.
But somehow I think that wouldn’t necessarily be the case.
I can see the headlines now posted on FR: “Christians Discriminated Against For Their Beliefs”, “Christians Refused Service”, “The War on Christianity Continues”, “Boycott This Anti-Christian Baker And Put Him Out Of Business”.
Personally I do not think that a Christian baker should be forced to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding if that conflicts with his religious beliefs. I don’t think any privately owned business should be forced by the government to accommodate and serve customers that they don’t want to serve for whatever or any reason.
That would include things that run contrary to my personal principals like refusing to serve people because of their race or gender, political affiliation, etc.
Should an anti-gun rights baker be forced to make a cake decorated with AK47’s for a gun range? Can a Muslim tow truck driver refuse to tow a car driven by a single scantily clad woman because that conflicts with his religious beliefs? Should a Jewish kosher deli be forced to make a ham sandwich? Can a BBQ restaurant owned by a black couple, refuse to seat and serve white people?
At the end of the day, if I’m going to be consistent, I’d have to say yes. But understanding this, I also have to accept that perhaps one day I’m going to be refused service.
Had he refused them service in general, that is one thing. He said he would sell them anything else, he just balked at the “custom order.” You seemed to miss the point. So, Ill pose you the question.....should a gay printer be forced to take and order to create a 100 foot banner that says “Homosexuality is a sin before God.” Should a black painter be forced to accept a contract to paint a portrait of a KKK leader? That is the point.
I dont see this so much as a gay/straight issue, rather as a matter of the state dictating the work that a craftsman must accept.
It was all about the "product" that the baker did not make in the first place. Never had made one, and refused to be browbeaten into creating something he never would.
He had no problems with serving gay customers, so the issue of "public accommodation" is NOT even on the radar.
I am starting to really dislike gay people.
I had gotten to where I just didn't care.
But this kind of blatant harassment has no place in our society.
And yes it is as disgusting as anything the fascists and communists did.
Civil Rights Commissions?
Unaccountable to anyone?
Abolish. NOW!
Colorado - currently civil unions allowed. Gay marriage not far behind ...
Whatever, I’m not taking the bait
Agreed!! It is fascism, no other way to describe it.
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.