Skip to comments.Cake Shop Owner Files Appeal After Judge Rules He Must Sell Wedding Cakes for Same-Sex Ceremonies
Posted on 01/08/2014 10:12:26 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Attorneys representing a Colorado cake shop and its Christian owner filed an appeal last week after a judge ruled last month that the company must sell wedding cakes to gay couples.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) attorneys filed the appeal Friday on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner, Jack Phillips.
"Every artist must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced to express contrary views," said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner in a statement. "Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free. If the government can take away our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can't take away."
In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Phillips to make a cake for their wedding reception. The couple planned to marry in Massachusetts then hold their reception in Colorado, where same-sex marriages are not recognized.
Phillips, a Christian, told the couple he would make them other baked items but, because of his religious beliefs, could not make them a cake for their wedding celebration.
Craig and Mullins, who are being represented by the ACLU of Colorado, filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, which determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop had illegally discriminated against them. According to the ACLU, the CCRD's findings then led the Colorado Attorney General's office to file a formal complaint against the company with the state courts.
"The undisputed facts show that respondents (Phillips) discriminated against complainants because of their sexual orientation by refusing to sell them a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage," wrote Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer in his decision in December.
Attorneys for Phillips argue that he did not deny the couple a wedding cake "because of" their sexual orientation, according to court documents. He did so because of his "unwavering Christian beliefs" about marriage and about how God would feel if he were to participate in or promote a same-sex wedding.
His attorneys also argue that Phillips's right to refuse to make a cake for a gay wedding celebration is protected by the Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses of the First Amendment.
"America was founded on the fundamental freedom of all citizens to live and work without fear of government punishment," said lead counsel Nicolle Martin, an ADF allied attorney, in a statement. "Jack simply exercised the long-cherished freedom to not speak by declining to promote a false view of marriage through his creative work. It's outrageous that the government would turn its guns on Jack and threaten him with a potential jail sentence unless he says and does what the government demands."
A Rasmussen Reports survey conducted in July 2013 focused on another type of wedding vendor, photographers. The survey found that 85 percent of American adults believe a Christian photographer who is opposed to gay marriage on religious grounds should have the right to say no when asked to work a same-sex wedding ceremony, and only eight percent disagree.
Good. Fight back!
The “I’m an artist” angle is a new one, and pretty creative. Since he offered to sell them other baked goods he has a good case, logically anyways.
Although, if ultimately forced to bake cakes for gay weddings, I think the best option is to fight fire with fire. Bake a good cake, then announce that the profits will be donated to a group dedicated to converting homosexuals to heterosexuals. He’ll never be asked to bake a cake for another gay wedding ...
1. Find a Gay Owned Print shop.
2. Have them print out flyers on the dangers of homosexual behavior.
3. Sue them when they won’t print it..
4. FORCE them to print it using government machinery they wanted to force others to make cakes....
It's time to pound some cake into the intolerant homosexuals faces.
I’ll make em a cake, $1 million with all proceeds to that group you mentioned.
If retail stores open to the general public are allowed to refuse service to people with “No shirt, No shoes, No service”, aren’t those stores discriminating against shirtless, shoeless people? What’s the difference here?
Being gay is not an immutable characteristic, people CHOOSE to be gay. (Show me the gay gene). If I want to stay overnight at the YWCA why can they refuse to let me just because I’m a man? Isn’t that discrimination? The Gaystopo are hypocrites.
Also freedom of association. A private business has the right to refuse service to anyone.
Not only that, but forcing him to provide goods/services violates the 13th Amendment -- Sec 1 - Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
He didn't refuse to sell them a cake. He refused to utilize his artistic talents to promote an agenda which he did not support.
This is a first amendment freedom of expression case. An artist should be free to pick the subjects in which he will exercise his artistic talents.
If the judge forces him to make them cakes, then he should charge $5,000 per cake...
Why must he sell to people he doesn’t want to?
RE: he should charge $5,000 per cake...
What if he charges much less for cakes baked for traditional weddings? Won’t he be sued again under the equal protection clause?
Both Nazis and the KKK are legal orgs. They have their rights. And if homos can demand people bake cakes for them, I guess hate groups have the same rights according to the lib legal eagles.
Make the cake, stick your privates in it, and if a homosexual complains call them cake-aphobes! Declare having sex with cakes was something you were born with and anyone who disagrees with it is full of hate.
If that doesn’t work, just call the act of putting your private in homosexual wedding cakes “art” and maybe the federal government will give you tax dollars to do it.
Since I can imagine that he would do the most appropriate cake relevant to the wedding being done then his only choice in this case would be to make a fruitcake.
Baker ruins brides big day by making cake to look like pile of faeces with flag sticking out saying ‘Eat s***’ after bust-up
If a company can be forced to create something to sell that is objectionable to them, how long before a company can be forced to sell objectionable items created by others?
For example, in the case of a bakery, will they be forced to carry groom-groom cake toppers?
Why not let the free market take care of things? Surely there is an enterprising homosexual who would like to cash in on this niche. Although I doubt it’s a large enough niche to be profitable.
IIRC, he actually told them that he'd make them any other kind of cake. So, he didn't refuse them a cake.
And how is this different than a muslim caterer refusing to prepare ham for a wedding? We know they'd treat it differently. Even these gay customers would have treated it differently...they wouldn't have asked in the first place if they knew he was Muslim, or if they found out he was a muslim they'd change to beef and lamb and think nothing of it.
Why? They'd say it was tolerance for differences.
But there's no tolerance for Christians. That's why Obama bullies nuns, why Saudi beheads them, and why gays take them to court.
Christianity isn't permitted to be itself. Everyone else is, though.
this is what America has come to under Obama...
we are all forced to pay
to prosecute a little bakery shop
not to sell a “wedding” cake
to a couple of homosexuals
since we are all stuck paying for the prosecution, does the baker have a defense fund we may also contribute to?
You beat me to it. Would a black seamstress be required to sew KKK robes? These morons should think things all the way through.
Frankly, you’d think there would be a niche market for people who’d particularly cater to the gay community and you’d think they’d support each other with their business...but NOOOOOO....gotta screw with everyone’s 1st amendment rights.
That’s what is so untenable about homosexuality as a political cause:
If its a choice, then its not a civil rights issue.
If its genetic, then its a disease in search of a cure.
Right now, it is what it needs to be in order for the cause to get what it wants. It is having its cake, and eating its cake.
In the case of this Colorado baker in particular.
Formed in the shape of an HIV virus.
Courts don't apply the 13th to restaurants that deny blacks. They uphold the anti-discrimnatory laws. If you choose to be in the restaurant business, you must serve blacks and that's not considered involuntary servitude.
The question is whether or not the court can see that this is fundamentally not a racial discrimination, but rather a participation in a ceremony that violates the defendant's religious beliefs.
If I was the lawyer I would just have the client claim he switched to being a Muslim and have his wife dress in one of those head to toe lamp shade outfits and dare the courts to force me to comply!
Not generally accurate, any more than choosing to be obsessive compulsive (though there are, of course, exceptions). In most cases, it's a response to very early developmental emotional damage. The choice comes when the person realizes it for what it is and either decides to combat it or embrace it. Unfortunately, the activists have successfully created a society of enablers and a cult of denial.
Sooooooo sick and tired of these freaks of Nature demanding this, that and the other thing! STFU already!
Your making his point. It’s either a disease, condition, syndrome, or some other ailment in search of cure, or it is a lifestyle choice.
If it is the former, we have the ADA, and it isn’t a civil rights issue, and we don’t need to change marriage to accommodate homosexuality any more than we would for necrophilia or pedophilia or, or, or.
If it is the later, it isn’t a civil rights issue.
So, either way, it isn’t a civil rights issue. They want it to be BOTH a disease AND choice at the same time.
Waiting for a judge to force a Jewish deli to cater to a Nazi party.
The State of Colorado ceased to be a State where our Government honored that “profound Reverence for for the Supreme ruler of the Universe” when beguiled people chose John Hickenlooper as governor and trusted Democrats to lead our State Legislature. Unless the entire United State of America is NOW made to be as Sodom and Like unto Gomorrah and therefore is no longer a Christian Nation —but a Queer Nation then Colorado has ceased to be an equal among the States. Fact is one cannot embrace the Fraud of same sex unions and be a child of God. This baker began his business in the United states of America in the state of Colorado.The purpose of Government is to protect Property.when the Government can dictate what a man can produce—and what a man must produce— and to whom that individual must sell a product he has produced then we are no longer a free people but reduced to slavery.Of a right he should appeal but I fear there is No longer a rule of Law and certainly NO justice when statute law overrides the State constitution. When immorality is elevated to a position of protected class status then there is NO justice.
In this case, the baker is doing business in Colorado and same sex marriage, whether conducted in or out of state, is not recognized by law. Having the reception in Colorado would likely be considered a protest against existing law and to force the baker to provide materials for that protest would not be an acceptable function of the court. In any event, the illegality, in the resident state, of the act being celebrated should invalidate any perceived right to service in that state.
Given that the CO constitution is rather specific about the issue, it's rather tragic that [IIRC] the federal route has to be taken because the State-level judge didn't apply it:
Art. II, Section 4. RELIGIOUS FREEDOMBut, more than this he ordered that the baker had to provide the service; this is not the same as enforcing anti-discriminatory laws, it is forcing him into servitude involuntarily (he cannot refuse, else be held in contempt, even "closing-shop" in an attempt to not comply could be considered contempt of court).
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.
“Not generally accurate, any more than choosing to be obsessive compulsive...”
In spite of your observation, Anti Dem’s point holds because people still choose it and there is no gay gene. This destroys their comparison to racial discrimination.
Let me illustrate: If one is very unfortunate in getting laid off and becoming poor he is not excused for compulsively murdering someone while robbing them. He choses it and there is no murder or robbery gene.
You’re not wrong, and as I pointed out there is an element of choice in that a person chooses to continue in the direction the compulsion is pulling them or not.
While there has not been any “gay gene” found (nor do I expect there to be, if for no other reason than homosexuality is ultimately an observed behavior, and you can’t observe such behavior in newborns, leaving only the observation of those who have developed past the age when environment did its damage); it’s a mistake to categorically declare that there isn’t a physiological component to it that hasn’t been determined. By that I mean that given one person’s biochemical makeup, the same emotional damage that drives one person to substance abuse might drive a different person to sexual excess, hetero- or homo-. That said, it doesn’t make it any less destructive and it doesn’t absolve the person from responsibility for their actions.
Don’t think for one minute that I’m defending homosexuality. But understanding its nature and basing dialogue on that is going to be more productive than simply declaring it to be something a person consciously chooses to feel. That attitude only reinforces the “us vs. them” mentality that drives the movement, and it’s a big reason why we are where we are today. We haven’t culturally been willing to engage in the debate. By simply pushing the topic away self-righteously, we’ve driven many into the activist camp who otherwise might have been persuaded by the decades of actual scientific research on the subject that has now been swept aside as hate literature.
But you’re not forced to serve them items not on your menu. If the government forced you to prepare collard greens against your will, that would be involuntary servitude.
“And how is this different than a muslim caterer refusing to prepare ham for a wedding?”
Difference is ham is not on the Muslim caterers menu. The point is the baker should not be forced to provide his services against his beliefs.
on a physiological cause for homosexuality. Twins studies would seem to rule that out. The incidence of h. in identical twins (where one is afflicted with h and the other is not) is lower than in fraternal twins and lower than in non-twin siblings.
Even though identical twins have the same physiology they have different rates of h.
(Scripter, do you recall the exact study this came from. I think it was the Hamer twin study but it’s been so long since I looked at it I may be wrong. Thanks!)
How’s that iron-fisted homo-marriage law working out for you so-called Libertarians out there?
What they don’t seem to get is that with leftists, they might say “equality”,
but they mean “supremacy”.
>> That attitude only reinforces the us vs. them mentality that drives the movement
To digress from your point, the movement is driven by Leftism. Homosexuals are its pawns.
Sigh. Guess I am just stubborn or stupid, but if I were the cake shop owner I’d just close up and refuse to do it. I know, that’s extreme, but geez, the government forcing him to provide a service for someone that he prefers not to (for whatever the reason!), then it’s not too hard to picture the next step being that because he’s a Christian he now has to wear a cross in public so he can be easily identified (kinda like those Stars of David back when the Nazis started bullying those they disliked. Paranoid? Nope, just stunned that our nation is declining so quickly into this cesspool and so many folks are too dumb to say anything or even to realize it.
>> but they mean supremacy.
A clip on HBO showed a lesbian “comedian” claiming it’s not tolerance the LGBT community wants, it’s acceptance. Of course the latter requires modifying one’s principles where tolerance simply implies the agreement to get along.
I never said physiological cause. Just component. Twin studies won’t entirely rule that out. Identical DNA doesn’t mean that all other biological processes track exactly the same as the subjects advance in age.
It’s a continuum.
tolerance -> acceptance -> recognition of supremacy
I don't think so. I mean, yes, as individuals they can certainly fall into the useful idiots category, but they have their own motivations and a force of their own that leftism tends to nicely harmonize with. In pro-homosexual movement was making advances on its own apart from the creep of progressivism.
Oh well. I would be taking up space at a jail because no way would I ever be a participant in these peoples perversion.
Should have been “In recent decades, the pro-homosexual movement...”