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
I live in Texas where you see signs in many businesses that read: WE RESERVE THE RIGHT TO WITHHOLD SERVICE FROM ANYONE.
Works
If it were me, I’d close my business and relocate it to another state.
If his business does not cross state lines the feds have absolutely no say. The fed has the power to regulate interstate commerce. If it lies strictly within a state the fed should butt out.
“Nice attitude. Brings Paine’s “sunshine soldier, summer patriot” to mind.”
You know, you’re not the first idiot to accuse people of being cowardly because they refuse to follow you as you run straight at a brick wall.
Liberalism, that is the ideology for people who want to blindly pursue their ideals, regardless of whether their tactics will accomplish anything. Conservatism, on the other hand, is pragmatic. We are not supposed to rush off half cocked just because someone suggests a bad plan.
No, it doesn’t. It wouldn’t matter if you have that sign in your window, because they can still sue you, and they can still win. A sign doesn’t stop you from being bound by the same laws as everyone else.
A sign doesn’t stop you from being bound by the same laws as everyone else.
...it might prevail in court, depending of course on the attorneys and the judge...but we could make book that an appellate court would be involved, sooner rather than later...
I don’t think even lower court judges would rule in favor of the business owner in that case. Those cases already wound their way through the system decades ago, so the precedents are too solid for anyone but the Supremes to challenge them now.
Tell you what, if it was me rather than lose my business in fines or go to jail I would agree to make cakes for anyone, but just refuse to decorate it with any markings that imply same sex marriage.
Just don’t offer those markings, only offer normal markings.
A cake is a cake.
To do otherwise is a losing battle that conservatives abandoned in the 1960s.
There is principle and then thereis cutting your nose off...
7. They want America to be more like those other countries, because they are told by the media and their educators that America is capitalist and greedy (RE: Conundrum #1).
Rinse, repeat. The circular logic of leftism.
Just don’t offer those markings, only offer normal markings
...he would be prosecuted under the exact same standard as he is now...
...it’s his refusal to recognize same sex marriage that’s at issue here, completely aside from what kind of cake he bakes...
...I suppose he could bake standard wedding cakes with no decorations at all, straight or gay. but really, who does that in the bakery business...?
I honestly don’t know if there is a legal defense fund.
This is a 1st Amendment freedom of assembly issue. Just as people are free to assemble for the purpose of business, people are also free to not assemble (applying the concepts of freedom of religon and freedom from religion).
The law which forces individuals to assemble against one party’s wishes is a clear violation of that freedom and is therefor unconstitutional.
“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.”
I would farm out the business and specify to the baker with no beliefs, that it be baked with a healthy dose of EX-Lax to be included in the recipe.
I cannot believe this is happening in this country. The inmates have taken over the asylum.
Anybody have the names and phone numbers of the Commission members?
If this man is shut down it is also seizure of private property without due process of law. He should have his day in court in front of a judge and 12 of his peers outside of this county.
I agree. Forcing a Jewish kosher deli to make a ham sandwich is exactly the same. The Jewish butcher says, “I will sell you and meat that I do; But, I don’t even DO ham.” Then he loses his case anyway.
This baker said that he would have sold them ANYTHING that he does do. He just doesn’t DO gay wedding cakes.
So, the homosexuals were not denied the ability to buy. They were denied the ability to force the baker to sell things he doesn’t sell.
It’s not on his menu.
Like asking McDonald’s for an Ostrich Big Mac.
I agree. But that isn’t a victory. I can’t believe this will hold up if it finally reaches the Supreme Court.
I think it can reach the federal system on the basis of first amendment violation required by the state.
He doesn’t make that kind of cake. They are forcing him not only to make that kind of cake, but to express things he doesn’t wish to express on the surface of that cake.
I’m sure he would have been fine with just baking a wedding cake that he normally makes and letting them walk out with it and change the top decoration and add any lettering.
Those would work, but they don’t address the freedom issue.
As I understand it, he offered to sell them a kind of cake that he does do. They want a kind of cake that he doesn’t do.
He hasn’t denied them service.
He’s denied them the power to change his menu.
He must also re-educate his staff about Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act. Under that law, artists must endorse all views.
Really now? What's the CO Constitution got to say on this matter?
Art II, Section 4. Religious freedom.So, look here; three violations all at once:
The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion; but the liberty of conscience hereby secured shall not be construed to dispense with oaths or affirmations, excuse acts of licentiousness or justify practices inconsistent with the good order, peace or safety of the state. No person shall be required to attend or support any ministry or place of worship, religious sect or denomination against his consent. Nor shall any preference be given by law to any religious denomination or mode of worship.
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.