Jack Phillips recently celebrated two anniversaries. On Labor Day, his bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado reached its 30th anniversary. The other anniversary this year was less celebratory. He has now spent 11 years in court fighting for his right to refuse to make cakes that conflict with his religious beliefs. In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Phillips to make a cake for their same-sex marriage. As a devout Christian, Phillips declined. He would sell any pre-made cakes to customer, but said that he could not morally make a cake for same-sex marriages.
That refusal turned Phillips’ tiny bakery into ground zero for the long-standing battle between religious rights and anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Phillips must make the cakes under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in what many of us hoped would be a final resolution of this conflict. I had long criticized the framing of the case (and other cases) under the religious clauses as opposed to taking this as a matter of free speech. In the end, the Supreme Court punted in a maddening 2018 decision that technically ruled in favor of Phillips based on a finding that the Commission showed anti-religious bias against Phillips.
As a result, Phillips was thrown back into an endless grind of litigation as activists targeted his bakery for additional challenges by demanding cakes with other messages that Phillips found offensive.
This year, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech in 303 Creative v. Elenis when it ruled that Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, could refuse service to a same-sex marriage. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote “the framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’ … They did so because they saw the freedom of speech ‘both as an end and as a means.’”
The decision was not just a vindication for Smith but Phillips. However, Phillips continued to languish in the Colorado system, spending over a decade in non-stop challenges and lawsuits. Because the Supreme Court could not reach a clear resolution, it left Phillips to the continued pursuit of activists targeting his bakery.
Now, the Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear the latest case involving Phillips.
In 2018, the nine justices ruled that the state of Colorado was hostile to Phillip’s religious beliefs and that the government can’t force anyone to create custom works of art that communicate a message.
In 2018, Phillips faced a second lawsuit, this time from a transgender lawyer who requested a cake celebrating a gender transition. When Phillips declined, he was back in court on grounds that he discriminated against the lawyer. The Colorado Supreme Court just agreed to hear his case.
The latest case began the year that Phillips was tossed back to the Colorado courts by the Supreme Court. Autumn Scardina, who identifies as transgender, asked Phillips to make a cake celebrating a gender transition – pink on the inside, blue on the outside. When Phillips declined, Scardina then asked for a cake depicting Satan smoking a marijuana joint – which Phillips also declined.
In his filings, Phillips alleges that “Scardina promised Phillips that, were this suit dismissed, Scardina would call Phillips the next day to request another cake and start another lawsuit.”
The recognition of Phillips’ rights were simply untimely for the Court. He had to be sent back to languish in litigation until the Court could eek out a majority this year.
For those of us in the free speech community, the issue is not underlying values on either side but the right to maintain opposing values. A Jewish baker should not be expected to make a Mein Kampf cake or an African American baker a KKK anniversary cake. Likewise, a LGBT baker should not be required to make a cake denouncing equal rights or homosexuality. It is all speech when part of a creative product.
All of these businesses, however, must sell pre-made products to anyone regardless of their status. In 303 Creative, the Supreme Court emphasized that any discrimination against customers in obtaining non-expressive or pre-made products would remain unlawful.
Phillips has cited a gay man who testified on his behalf in court in affirming that he has not discriminated against LGBT members in such purchases.
The appellate court found that one of the cakes with only blue and red icing lacked expressive content. Phillips insists that it was made clear to him that it was a celebration for a gender transitioning.
That case presents a line drawing issue that I discuss in my forthcoming law review article, The Unfinished Masterpiece: Compulsion and the Evolving Jurisprudence over Free Speech, 82 Maryland Law Rev. (forthcoming 2023). In discussing the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, I wrote about the concurrence opinion that touched on this point:
“While the majority opinion lacked the bold embrace of an autonomous view that some of us had hoped would emerge, the partial concurrence by Justice Clarence Thomas, joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch, hinted at something more for later cases. Thomas concurred to offer a broader view of free speech. He noted that the Tenth Circuit acknowledged that some cakes may have particular writing or imagery connected to a wedding, but he stressed that, regardless of such content, baking is inherently creative and, therefore, speech:
‘[A] wedding cake needs no particular design or written words to communicate the basic message that a wedding is occurring, a marriage has begun, and the couple should be celebrated. Wedding cakes have long varied in color, decorations, and style, but those differences do not prevent people from recognizing wedding cakes as wedding cakes.'”
We will now have a case that could establish greater clarity on that issue. In 303 Creative, Justice Gorsuch clearly indicated that the purpose of the cake weighed heavily in the free speech analysis. It is not clear whether other justices in the majority would join the dissenting justices in an alternative approach. In such a case, Jack Phillips could find his way back to the Supreme Court seeking constitutional relief.
As Hebrews around the world are dealing with yet another extremist attack upon their right to be Hebrews and practice the Old Testament as Jews, Colorado homosexuals have chosen to spend the last 11 years attacking a small businessman who makes pastries for a living.
Russia wants to extinguish everything Ukranian; China is extinguishing Muslims (uyghurs), Colorado is supporting the extinguising of individual businesspersons for God only knows what reason — there must be MONEy involved — always follow the money.
= is the symbol for equality, not congruence.
No baker has wedding cakes on th shelf. They are one off.
Nope, it’s the right of free association.
It is also the right to refuse service.
Can President Trump force an artist to do his Presidential portrait?
People have been using religion to justify discrimination for thousands of years. The argument is the same, only the target of the discrimination is different. It has always been wrong and bigotry. Religion should not be a license to ignore laws you don’t like.
Marxism has been used as an ideology to slaughter people deemed deplorable, more than any other ideology in global history. Yet here you are pushing your Marxist crap day after day, Bob, Wally, Concerned Citizen, Gigi, Dennis, blah blah blah
Sammy – the First Amendment protects both bigots and saints. It shields both groups from government coercion. It’s not a matter of not liking a law, but whether that law is unconstitutional.
What law did Phillips violate
It’s Free Speech rights.
What do you call a bus load of ambulance-chasing attorneys going over a cliff? “A good start.”
As a life time resident (75 years) of Colorado, I find this court case brought up by the Democrat controlling entities of Colorado appalling.
There is/was no logical reason or legal reason for this case to have ever went to court.
The political regime of Colorado is bound by the State Constitution,
Article 2 Section 4:“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.”
This case will cost the Colorado tax payers about $2,500,000.00, while those who prosecuted this needless issue, still receives their lucrative salary throughout the rest of their lives.
Every elected public servant is bound by their oath of office to support and defend the state and federal Constitutions.
Every business owner has the right to refuse service to anyone.
He won’t engage in artistic expression that expresses ideas that he disagrees with. The existing cake he would sell to a gay couple would not have had the expression of such ideas. Can you see the difference? And as noted above, whether the artist is a bigot or a saint, the First Amendment protects them from being coerced by the government into expressing ideas that violate their conscience. That’s a victory for all who oppose government coercion.
“It’s christian rights.”
Damn tootin’! we will not stop until you and your kind possess virtues, adopt a moral code and recognize Hamas as terrorists
BTW who is writing your talking points, Andrea Mitchell?
Yes! How did you guess?
The ruling protects freedom of expression for everyone, whether Christian, atheist, or some other religion. The ruling in 303 Creative was not specific to Christianity. It was a victory for freedom of expression over government enforcement of political orthodoxy. Whether the person engaging in artistic expression is a bigot or a saint, they’re protected. That’s the beauty of the First Amendment.
You can blame the lawyers who bring cases for the sole purpose of harassing and bankrupting defendants. They should be disbarred. You can also blame SCOTUS for issuing wavering, fence straddling opinions. This reminds me of the Asians Students vs. Harvard opinion where Roberts wrote that universities can’t consider race in admissions, but can consider how race race impacted the student. What??? Just an invitation for further litigation…..
Sorry I’m calling BS on JT. Free speech my ass. How about I want to be a racist, misogynst, LGBTQ+ hater, etc. and tough sh– on you. So any business can refuse to do business with anybody or any group they have a “religious” abhorrence to? Sorry, that this a bunch of crap. Oh wait, that’s right you can’t do it to black people because…well just because the SC said you can’t. But JT is making an argument that under religious grounds a business should be able to refuse service. So how about a hotel refusing to let a black person stay at their hotel because, well my religion says blacks and whites should not mingle. You can have your racist, misogynist, LGTBQ+ hating views if you want. But if you are doing business you do business with anyone that walks in the door. To do anything less is not good for society. You don’t like baking cakes for a lesbian, sorry, you are in the wrong business. What’s next. a heating repair company finds out your partner is the same sex and they say on religious grounds I can’t enter your house to fix your heater? Where does it end?
We live in a society together. If I have to live with your BS religious beliefs, you have to live with mine.
Identity politics is sooooooo Hamas
How many children did you behead today, “Bob”?
What the heck does what I say have to do with Hamas. You must be a trump supporter because you IQ appears to be about as low as his, 25 perhaps?
You must have a low IQ for not recognizing that Hamas practices the slaughtering of innocents and decapitating babies based on identity politics.
What is it with you trolls being so dull and brain dead? Cmon, up your game, missy
Again you prove your ignorance as my post said nothing about Hamas. What is wrong with you, can’t you keep on topic like who won the NBA last year? Sheeeeesh, calling people names because….your IQ is less than 10? You are as dumb as a rock.
So any business can refuse to do business with anybody or any group they have a “religious” abhorrence to?
No, it has nothing to do with doing business with others. As has been pointed out, Jack does business with anyone and everyone. He just doesn’t want to be forced by the government to create messages he disagrees with. That applies to any artist – no artist wants to be told by the government what their art should say. And the First Amendment protects artists from that type of state coercion. Whether the artist is a bigot or a saint, they’re protected by the First Amendment.
BS
That’s a perfect title for the remainder of your emotional rant.
Bob A good bit of bovine fecal matter in your post. Self representation, self determining of taxes, self determining of Religious beliefs,and Christian Principles, that is what this country was founded on. There is no denying that. You can make every attempt under the sun, but can not change that fact. That is why George Washington would dismount his horse step into the woods and Pray. Many people have died enforcing their belief in the value and auspices of that US Constitution.
Cassius Clay refused to enter the draft under auspices of his so-called religious belief. Innately same sex was considered an abomination, and all of a sudden it must be accepted? Psalms 14: 1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no GOD> Believe as you choose, to each his own, and to nothing own self be true. His judgment comes right soon. Selah
>> We live in a society together. If I have to live with your BS religious beliefs, you have to live with mine. <<
You get one thing right: your views are BS.
Who do you think you're fooling? It's obvious you do NOT want to coexist.
Left wing trash perpetually engage in lawfare against this one man. It's nothing more than a power play to use government force to make him submit.
If he fails to submit, you want to force him into bankruptcy. You want to deprive him of his business and livelihood. All because he doesn't want to violate his conscious and bake a stupid cake for something he considers against his faith.
He does not have a monopoly. If the homos want to coexist, they'd go to one of the vast majority of bakers who will happily bake the cake. But that's not what they want. They want to break him. Force him to submit. To violate his conscious.
You clowns pretend to be tolerant but it's just propaganda that works on morons. You're evil.
The principle of congruence (“=”) is a religious (e.g. moral, ethical) doctrine of selective exclusion. Civil unions for all consenting adults. Stop the binary bigotry, the albinophobic pride and prejudice.
≅.
Its called amendment. Get to work
OT
WWIII???
Who’s responsible: Joke Buydem
Who’s responsible for Joke Buydem: Barack Hussein “Barry Soetoro” Obama, son of a foreign citizen, Hillary Clinton et al.
This is becoming grotesque. We are witnessing lawyers using lawfare to try to force through a decision against a Supreme Court ruling that they oppose. In every one of these cases, the plaintiffs had a reasonable alternative: Each plaintiff could have made their cake purchase elsewhere. Instead, they are each acting to force extra personal expense upon Mr Phillips to have to defend himself in court from their own personal attitudes.
Such serial harassment by these lawyers should be sanctioned by the state courts. The courts are not designed for people to exercise their personal dislikes against the rest of society.
“Four of the former Ohio State University wrestlers who have accused Rep. Jim Jordan of failing to protect them from a sexual predator when he was the team’s assistant coach in the 1980s and ’90s said Tuesday he has no business being the next speaker of the House.
“’Do you really want a guy in that job who chose not to stand up for his guys?’ said former OSU wrestler Mike Schyck, one of the hundreds of former athletes and students who say they were sexually abused by school doctor Richard Strauss and have sued the university. ‘Is that the kind of character trait you want for a House speaker?’ … Dunyasha Yetts, another former OSU wrestler who has publicly and repeatedly accused Jordan of lying about not knowing what Strauss was doing to the athletes, said the congressman’s ‘hypocrisy is unbelievable.’”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/former-osu-wrestlers-say-jim-jordan-betrayed-shouldnt-house-speaker-rcna119116
Decadal suppressed memories? A Christine Blasey Ford conspiracy or false memory?
Gays used to want tolerance and equal protection.
Very fair.
Now they want submission and endorsement.
What will they want next?
The transgender spectrum (e.g. homosexual couplets) are transitioning through a Pro-Choice religious experience. The incongruities of the seculat Pro-Choice religion are palpable and progressive.
The only thing the slaves wanted was freedom.
Now all they want is…
Our Constitution places sincerely held religious beliefs above sincerely held nonreligious beliefs. This is unjust.
Our Constitution places sincerely held religious beliefs above sincerely held nonreligious beliefs.
Where in the constitution does it say that?
The reality is they both have an equal right to their “sincerely held belief.” And neither belief has the right to force others to act against their belief.
Wow. Have you never read the First Amendment? “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This is interpreted by SCOTUS as enabling people to refrain from things that would otherwise be legally mandated if the reason for doing so is a sincerely held religious belief, when they do not similarly rule if the belief is a sincerely held nonreligious belief.
Hamas reports they are looking for their village idiot in Gaza. Go to them but leave behind your gender affirming shtick. We will recognize you hiding behind women and children when you get to Gaza
Giving special privileges to religion over non-religion is establishment of religion. Especially in the US where Christians are the ones getting the special privileges. SCOTUS is wrong.
Especially in the US where Christians are the ones getting the special privileges.
Specifically, what special privileges has SCOTUS provided Christians?
The privilege of being exempt from the law because they are religious.
LOL! That’s not a privilege, it’s called a right. Any law that infringes on that right is unjust and should be struck down as unconstitutional. Use your brain. If the law can force someone to violate their deeply held beliefs, then the Baker would have the right to force the Customer to accept whatever the Baker provided.
Yup. You just proved the constitution doesn’t support your original statement.
This is interpreted by SCOTUS as enabling people to refrain from things that would otherwise be legally mandated if the reason for doing so is a sincerely held religious belief, when they do not similarly rule if the belief is a sincerely held nonreligious belief.
There is no such thing as legally mandatinginfringing someone’s 1st amendment right. Sincerely held beliefs, whether religious or nonreligious, are protected under the 1st amendment. What you fail to acknowledge is no law shall be made to force others to violate their 1st amendment rights. A ruling against the baker’s 1st amendment right would also be a ruling against the 1st amendment right of the customer.
“Sincerely held beliefs, whether religious or nonreligious, are protected under the 1st amendment.”
Not according to SCOTUS.
Not according to SCOTUS.
Cite the ruling from SCOTUS proving your statement true.
Right after you cite the SCOTUS ruling affirming your claim that “Sincerely held beliefs, whether religious or nonreligious, are protected under the 1st amendment.”
Time for a reminder on how this thread began:
Anonymous: Our Constitution places sincerely held religious beliefs above sincerely held nonreligious beliefs.
Your words, not mine.
This was my comment.
And I quoted the section of the First Amendment that shows this: it protects free exercise of religion while being silent about the free exercise of non-religious beliefs.
Of course that section is silent on the free exercise of non-religious beliefs. Because that section is regarding religion. Non-religious beliefs are everything other than religious beliefs.
“Non-religious beliefs are everything other than religious beliefs.”
Duh.
Do tell us the section about the free exercise of non-religious beliefs.
“I quoted the section of the First Amendment . . .”
In other words, you cherry picked, in order to rationalize your conclusion.
The relevant section of 1A that you conveniently left out : “or abridging the freedom of speech.”
Sam
No, Sam, the speech clause is not relevant to the fact that the Constitution places sincerely held religious beliefs above sincerely held nonreligious beliefs. As an atheist, strange that this doesn’t bother you.
Anon: Self representation, self determining of taxes, self determining of Religious beliefs,and Christian Principles, that is what this country was founded on. There is no denying that. You can make every attempt under the sun, but can not change that fact. That is why George Washington would dismount his horse step into the woods and Pray. Many people have died enforcing their belief in the value and auspices of that US Constitution.
Cassius Clay refused to enter the draft under auspices of his so-called religious belief. Innately same sex was considered an abomination, and all of a sudden it must be accepted? Psalms 14: 1 The fool hath said in his heart, there is no GOD> Believe as you choose, to each his own, and to nothing own self be true. His judgment comes right soon. Selah
The US was not founded on Christian Principles. There are no Christian Principles in the Constitution. At the time the church has massive political influence and a formal role in government in Europe, the US Constitution specifically went in the opposite direction.
It considers them equally, not congruently (“=”).