[CFW]

SCOTUS made a mistake in issuing a too narrow a decision in the previous case involving Masterpiece Bakery. They should have come down on Colorado hard. Their failure allowed Colorado and the GIBLET activists to continue their persecution of Jack Phillips and other artists who should not be forced to provide their artistic services in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.

[The Louiswu]

What a nightmare for Mr. Phillips.

[Sgt_Schultze]

The dude in the middle is the attorney suing.

[jagusafr]

He should have said, “ Oh, a fantasy theme! Sure, which Disney princess would you like?”

[daniel1212]

SCOTUS made a mistake in issuing a too narrow a decision in the previous case involving Masterpiece Bakery. They should have come down on Colorado hard. Their failure allowed Colorado and the GIBLET activists to continue their persecution of Jack Phillips and other artists who should not be forced to provide their artistic services in violation of their sincerely held religious beliefs.

But since SCOTUS effectively legalized the bed for homosexuals then it is in a quandry as to how to rule in favor of those who refuse to sell one for that expressed purpose, or make it.

Yet if any case should have been a slam dunk case for Masterpiece it was this one. The plaintiffs essentially wanted Jack Phillips/Masterpiece to be complicit in the celebration of a union which was not only illicit based upon the supreme civil document of the state at that time (the CO constitution, by voter amendment, disallowed same-sex marriage) as well as illegal (CO did not recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages, and the plaintiffs were "married" in MA), but grossly immoral in the supreme law of Masterpiece, the Bible. Thus while Kennedy mentioned that "the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” yet SCOTUS basically kicked the can down the road: "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts."

The case goes back to July 2012, when same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be legally wed in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with family and friends. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. (In 2000, Gov. Bill Owens signed into law a bill banning same-sex marriage.[1] In 2006 by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent voters had passed Colorado Amendment 43 which defined marriage in the state constitution as only between one man and one woman.[2] On October 7, the Colorado Supreme Court removed the legal obstacles preventing Colorado's county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, legalising same-sex marriage in the state.[3] Since 2014, the state has since allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) that marriage is a fundamental right that extends to same-sex couples.)[4]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in 2012 to order a custom wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is Christian, declined, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.[5]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings[5]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.[6][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Colorado

Back in 2012, two men asked Jack to design a cake for their same-sex wedding. Now mind you, back in 2012, the state of Colorado didn’t even recognize same-sex weddings. Jack told them that he would gladly sell them any item in the store—including cakes—but that he could not, due to his religious convictions, use his cake-design talents to participate in the celebration of their ceremony. - BreakPoint: Get the Facts about Jack (Phillips, that Is)

Until 2013, a couple with an out-of-state civil union or same-sex marriage could not dissolve their relationship in Colorado, because C.R.S. 14-2-104(2) does not recognize a valid a same-sex marriage [vs civil unions] performed outside of Colorado. - Same-Sex Marriage & Civil Unions

Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in the state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014. Same-sex marriage in Colorado - Wikipedia

While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.[4][3] Colorado is one of twenty-one U.S. states that have anti-discrimination laws against sexual orientation.[5] Craig and Mullins' complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.[6] The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers."[7]

Masterpiece appealed the decision with the aid of Alliance Defending Freedom, and refused to comply with the State's orders, instead opting to remove themselves from the wedding cake business;[4] Phillips claimed that this decision cost him 40% of his business.[8] Alongside the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union represented Craig and Mullins during the appeals.[3]

The State's decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals on appeal. In its decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals asserted that despite the artistic nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was part of the expected conduct of Phillips' business, and not an expression of free speech nor free exercise of religion.[4][9]

The Supreme Court of Colorado declined to hear an appeal.

The Court of Appeals distinguished its decision in Craig from another case in which three bakeries refused to create a cake with the message "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22",[3]:21 citing that in the latter, the bakeries had made other cakes for Christian customers and declined that order based on the offensive message rather than the customers' creed, whereas Masterpiece Cakeshop's refusal to provide Craig & Mullins with a wedding cake "was because of its opposition to same sex marriage which...is tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation."[3]:21

...the Commission has allowed bakers to refuse to provide cakes with anti-same-sex marriage messages on them, even though the Commission said these refusals were appropriate due to the offensiveness of the messages and not on the basis of religion. - Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission - Wikipedia

Which is absurd, for both opposition to homosexual marriage as well as support of it (and opposition to speech condemning it) flows from belief. Masterpiece opposes homosexual marriage because of his belief, and some bakeries oppose the Leviticus 18:22 message because of their belief. And both the special-purpose cake and the inscripted one are expressions.​

[lee martell]

Is the Alliance Defending Freedom helping Jack Phillips pay some of the legal fees? I would’ve thought he had retired by now, or at least moved out of that area to leave the nonsense behind. I’m glad he still choses to stand up and fight back.

[VideoPaul]

I had a business partner who said, “If you can’t beat ‘em, BILL em!”

We had contracts with clients whose business practices we found offensive, but at the end of the day, we walked away counting the money they had just handed us. And it felt pretty damn good.

$2500 a day, plus all expenses bought us drastically improved standards of living for our families. and, as they say, living well is the best revenge.

[exPBRrat]

What a ridiculous use of our law and legal infrastructure.

[Scrambler Bob]

Masterpiece Cakeshop
= = =

Well “Masterpiece Cakeshop” does have “Master” In it.

That’s death, right there.

[mewzilla]

Update!

12 Years of Legal Battles Finally Come to an End for Christian Baker in Colorado Who Refused to Bake a Pro-Tranny Cake