Posted on 06/25/2021 4:35:38 AM PDT by Kaslin
I've been writing about Colorado cakemaker Jack Phillips' fight against cultural authoritarians for a long time. This past March, I noted that Phillips would probably be badgered into the grave. And this week, Denver district judge A. Bruce Jones again found that the state could compel speech, claiming that Phillips had acted unlawfully when refusing to create a cake that celebrated the alleged gender transition of a Colorado activist.
When Phillips declined to participate in the wedding of David Mullins and Charlie Craig back in the summer of 2012 -- this was before Obergefell v. Hodges and before gay marriage was even legalized in Colorado -- he made himself the target of harassment by activists and "civil-rights" commissions that set out to destroy his business over a thought crime; by courts that set out to corrode religious liberty and free-speech protections; and by media that either don't understand or don't value free expression anymore.
Journalists have been misleading their audiences about this case for nearly a decade. So, it needs to be repeated that Phillips never turned a gay couple away from his shop. He never "refused" to sell a gay couple his products. Mullins and Craig were free to buy anything they desired from Masterpiece Cakeshop. They weren't free, however, to force Phillips to create something that conflicted with his long-held religious beliefs. One of the most basic ideals of liberty is that we don't coerce individuals to say things -- or refrain from saying things -- in ways that violate their conscience.
Yet, in 2012, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission set about bankrupting Phillips by asserting that his refusal to bake a cake was driven by a deep-seated personal animosity toward gay customers rather than by his Christian faith. Now, even if this had been the case, and the commissars could divine Jack's intentions, there is no addendum to the First Amendment that says we must spare the feelings of gay couples or anyone else.
But, of course, none of the evidence backed the commission's assertion. In fact, when Phillips and his wife opened their business in the early '90s, they decided Masterpiece Cakeshop would adhere to their values. While those values changed for some, they didn't for this couple, which is why they still won't bake cakes with alcohol, salacious ones for bachelor or bachelorette parties, or even Halloween cakes.
"Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be -- I mean, we -- we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination," commissioner Diann Rice noted, giving away the game in 2014. "And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to -- to use their religion to hurt others."
Setting aside Rice's fatuousness, the fact is that Phillips didn't hurt anyone. When activists first began picketing Masterpiece Cakeshop, their rainbow flags were set up in a busy intersection near the shop -- right across the street from another bakery that would make any cake they wanted. Within the five-square-miles radius of Masterpiece were at least a dozen places that would have made a gay-marriage cake.
It was Rice who intended to hurt people. Her words, and the actions of the commission, were a warning to Christian businesses that a failure to take orders from a culturally approved class of customers could mean destruction of your livelihood. Indeed, Rice's words also allowed the Supreme Court to punt the case. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a 7-2 Supreme Court decision in Phillips' favor, was not only narrow but also largely useless. The only real mistake the commissars had made, it seems, was openly demeaning their target's faith. They would do better next time.
In June 2017, the very day the Supreme Court agreed to hear Phillips' case, Autumn Scardina, a transgender activist in Denver, called Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested a custom cake with a blue exterior and a pink interior to symbolize a gender transition. Phillips turned down Scardina, as the lawyer knew he would. "I was stunned," Scardina would laughably inform the Colorado Civil Rights Commission later.
Scardina hadn't tripped over the nation's most famous Christian baker by happenstance. Phillips is now back where he started, guilty of a thought crime. Scardina, in fact, admitted this was about wanting to "correct the errors" in Phillips' thinking. And an unprincipled judge such as Adams has affirmed the right of certain people to impel speech on others. Let's hope it's temporary. What is certain is that the crusade to destroy Phillips -- and many others like him -- will continue until the Supreme Court upholds the clear language and intent of the First Amendment.
Too bad this trans person didn’t walk into the cake shop barefoot...
The gay mafia exposes their plan in this instance. They want to destroy those that do not agree with them. The state if Colorado is being destroyed by the gay mafia agenda.
The Left will never stop until your are destroyed and killed.
This guy big cakes for other homosexual groups, the only cake he didn’t want to with some transgender type thing. This man is not the Super Christian that everybody’s claiming he is.
From the start, I knew the motivation to punish Phillips was pure politics. In a place like Colorado, the would-be customers don’t have to go far to find a bakery willing to make the cake they want.
Phillips should simply ask $1M for his art. Would there be a single cake order from gay activists?
Even if they paid, he could outsource the job to someone else, after all it is his choice how and where an art piece is being made.
Philips will sell his standard wares to any customer, but refuses to create custom cakes that violate his Christian standards. I find your impugning of his character distasteful, and false.
Honestly, I find it surprising, as well. I’d always observed you to be a thoughtful observer.
You are missing the point — ultimately it is not about homosexuality, it is about a business being forced into making a political/moral statement the proprietor disagrees with.
The supreme court could have circumvented this latest lawsuit going anywhere with a strong decision before. But as usual for the Roberts court they essentially crafted a weaselly, weak ruling that could only be applied in that narrow case. That practically invited the plaintiffs to try again.
You haven't been paying attention.
Honestly, he should hang up a very long, and detailed TERMS OF SERVICE agreement and hand it to everyone to read and sign before they can get a custom cake made. Make it just like the Google/YouTube/Facebook/Twitter ones. Obviously those are all good, so if his gets knocked down, the big tech ones can be killed too. All he needs is that if HE finds them offensive to him, he can declare he isn’t going to bake the cake.
People could start asking for custom cakes celebrating coming to Jesus, detransitioning, coming out of the LGTB lifestyle…
Or a solution I read: the profits of each custom cake I bake for certain causes will be donated to a group which fights against that cause.
(Hmmmmm, spell check corrects if I use two i’s in transitioning but not in detransitioning.)
You’re a dumbass and have no idea what you’re talking about. He does not bake cakes for gays. He said they are free to buy anything in his shop that he normally bakes and does not refuse to sell to them. He DOES refuse to build them anything specially decorated for them.
It’s clear you have never met the guy or stepped into his store for a slice of cake. And he is a quiet, kind, and gentle soul... but with clear eyed juju strength. He wouldn’t call himself a super Christian. He would probably call himself just another sinner redeemed by Jesus. He’s one of the few people I’ve ever met who doesn’t seem to have an ounce of cruelty in him. He’s truly a humble soul.
Did he refuse to bake you a tyranny cake? You seem mad lol.
THAT is a good idea. Cut and paste the Facebook terms of service, changing only the product described. Say they violated his community standards.
Well, it’s only fair to go after Phillips - if the government can compel and force Muslim bakeries to bake cakes for homosexual weddings and gender transitionings then it’s fair for them to force Christian bakeries to do the same thing, right?
The way to at least slow this down would be a counter-suit against the attorney pursuing these cases against him, for “Barratry”, “The act or practice of bringing a groundless lawsuit or lawsuits.”
All states have anti Barratry laws, which are mostly used against legal harassment.
Actually yes he did oh, so now who’s the dumb bunny?
https://twitter.com/ramadlav/status/1405967176675250178?s=19
He made them for the log cabin republican group and that is something that he claims to be against but he did it for the GOP homosexuals
https://twitter.com/ramadlav/status/1405967176675250178?s=19
Yes, the point is homosexuals and homosexuality. Apparently you’re the one who’s not understanding that.
https://twitter.com/ramadlav/status/1405967176675250178?s=19
Fine, go to the supreme court and say, “I don’t want to serve homosexuals.”. You will get slapped down hard every single time and you will let them set the precedent that every Christian everywhere can’t say no to a homosexual for anything.
That is being pathologically stupid and fighting on the ground of your enemy’s choosing.
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.