Colorado Cake Company Appeals Decision Forcing Them to Make Cakes for Same-Sex Weddings

Christian Post ^ | 07/23/2014 | Michael Gryboski

[SeekAndFind]

A Colorado baker who was found guilty of discrimination for not baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is appealing the decision.

Jake Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop hopes to win at the appellate level after being told that he must serve gay couples wedding cakes and take a diversity course.

Phillips is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, who filed the appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals last Wednesday.

ADF lead counsel Nicolle Martin, who is involved in the appeal, said in a statement that Phillips did not unlawfully discriminate against anyone, but rather refused to endorse something he morally disagreed with.

"This is not about the people who asked for a cake; it's about the message the cake communicates," said Martin.

"Just as Jack doesn't create baked works of art for other events with which he disagrees, he doesn't create cake art for same-sex ceremonies regardless of who walks in the door to place the order."

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins wanted Phillips to make a cake for their wedding reception.

Phillips explained to the couple that he could make them other baked items but, because of his Christian beliefs, he will not make them a cake for their reception.

With the aid of the American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

The division determined that Masterpiece Cakeshop had discriminated against them. According to the ACLU, the division's findings led the state attorney general's office to file a formal complaint against the company via the state courts.

[4Runner]

This is why we will never be able to defend our country by attacking Mexico, Nicaragua, or Guatemala to stop the invasion. Or have the NG shoot at one single border jumper. The Congress and the states are so frightened of violating the presumed rights of our foreign alien enemies and then having to face a class action lawsuit by La Raza, CAIR, and their omnipresent enabler, the ACLU, and then having to deal with all of the maniacal left-wing Marxist judge crap littering America’s courtrooms, who are only too willing to hand the ACLU a victory for America’s enemies. It is way past time to begin to rein in the overwhelming power of this anti-American lawyers group which has had way too much corrosive influence on judicial decisions favoring everything and anything inimical to and destructive of traditional conservative American cultural values.

[Mr. K]

Who wants to bet the gay couple tried a few other bakeries before they were denied a cake at this one?

Instead of going to any other bakery that would be happy to have their business, they wanted to FORCE this one to work for them IN COURT -to set legal precedent.

That is the bottom line.

[DoodleDawg]

Considering the Hobby Lobby decision then how can they lose?

[left that other site]

Precisely.

Even if such marriages are legal, there are people who don’t agree. Should they be forced to provide services to something they don’t agree with?

[SeaHawkFan]

There are reasonable laws regarding the hospitality industry that address those situations.

I should have been clearer.

[cuban leaf]

I wouldn’t go to a re-education camp.

---

I was in a class that was kinda like a re-education camp once. The teacher was teaching some stuff that was easily refuted. I called him out on it and explained why it was incorrect. He couldn’t respond. He only knew what had been handed to him. I called him out so many times they kicked me out.

[cuban leaf]

Even if such marriages are legal, there are people who don’t agree. Should they be forced to provide services to something they don’t agree with?

---

The other side would tell you that if you don’t force them, you end up with Jim Crow.

[JamesP81]

I would think that the bakery should be able to win this in federal court based on the Hobby Lobby decision.

[Rome2000]

“Everybody is entitled to their own beliefs, but that doesn’t mean that folks have the right to discriminate,” he told the newspaper. “The goal is never to shut down a business. The goal is to rehabilitate.” - Brad Avakian, Oregon Labor Commissioner

Apparently somebody died and made this guy Boss.

What a country we're becoming!

[cuban leaf]

So far as being obliged to bake gay wedding cakes, well, you can bake ‘em, but they don’t have to be good. Bake them a Mexican sheetcake and see if they want to buy another.

---

I’m a big fan of civil disobedience.

[wbill]

"Here's the wedding cake that you forced me to bake. While you enjoy it, think about the fact that, thanks to you, I've incurred substantial legal bills and had my business and very livelihood put in jeopardy. Both myself, and my family have been subjected to numerous verbal and physical threats from you, and people just like you, for no other reason than you felt the need to score a few political points at our expense.

So.........Bon Appetit!!"

Man, I'd not want to get within 1000 yards of a cake like that.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: There are reasonable laws regarding the hospitality industry that address those situations.

My point in bringing race up is because this argument will inevitably be brought up in court and a liberal court WILL BUY IT.

The gist of the LGBT argument is this:

IF REFUSING SERVICE TO A BLACK MAN BECAUSE OF HIS RACE IS AGAINST THE LAW ( where one cannot use RELIGION as a shield) ), THEN REFUSING SERVICE TO SOMEONE BECAUSE OF HIS OR HER SEXUAL ORIENTATION SHOULD ALSO BE AGAINST THE LAW.

Conservative lawyers ought to come up with a good argument against that one.

[Rome2000]

This is all about the faggots and the commies persecuting Christians.

They need to step off before they push too far.

[Kickass Conservative]

The Civil Rights Act eliminated Freedom of Association.
The Law of unintended consequences.

Everything grows from that Legislation.
The Constitution be damned.

[cuban leaf]

So, refusing service to a black man simply because of his race is constitutional?

---

This is the uncomforable part for me, because although I would never do business with an establishment that did such a thing, I think it is constitutional.

“The free man owns himself. He can damage himself with either eating or drinking; he can ruin himself with gambling. If he does he is certainly a damn fool, and he might possibly be a damned soul; but if he may not, he is not a free man any more than a dog.” — GK Chesterton

[left that other site]

No one is refusing service to anyone based upon their race.

It is the event that goes against the person’s conscience (whatever the event might be), and that is where the right to refuse to provide a particular service should be protected by the Constitution.

In the case of the Colorado Baker, the homosexuals were already customers. He had never refused them service before. It was the EVENT that was the problem, not the customer.

[4Runner]

Hobby Lobby? Please. One win for every thousand cases lost to the ACLU does not a victory make. We are beyond circling the drain.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: The Civil Rights Act eliminated Freedom of Association.
The Law of unintended consequences.

_______________________

Here’s a hypothetical question — would blacks be enjoying the kind of freedom they have today if the Civil Rights Act were not passed?

[Gay State Conservative]

What you've suggested would be worthless for one simple reason...to be effective the person you're addressing would have to have a conscience.

Do perverts like these strike you as possessing a guilt-ridden conscience?

[cuban leaf]

One is on religious grounds. The other can’t be supported on religious grounds.