GUEST COLUMN: What the state can do to me — it can do to you . ( Jack Phillips

For more than 10 years, a Colorado law has been misused to punish me for something I didn’t do. For more than 30 years, my family and I have quietly operated Masterpiece Cakeshop, baking treats and specializing in custom-designed cakes to celebrate special occasions. I welcome everyone into my shop, treat them with respect, and if they ask for a particular kind of custom cake, do my best to create something beautiful and memorable.

Like most of us, I too have sincere beliefs that guide and inspire my life, so I can only create custom cakes that will express or symbolize a message consistent with my beliefs.

My creativity is inseparable from my convictions, and both run deep in my soul. But this desire to create art that is consistent with who I am is what has brought me into conflict with state officials who have tried to force me to say something I don’t believe. The Colorado government, and then an activist attorney, have misused state law for over a decade now, trying to harass and punish me until I express messages against my beliefs — or go out of business. This relentless prosecution violates both my religious freedom and my free speech.

I had to go all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court with the help of my attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom in 2017, where a 7-2 majority determined that state officials had shown impermissible hostility toward me and my religious beliefs. That went a long way toward shoring up my religious freedom, and I’m grateful. But sadly, the court’s ruling didn’t address how state law was misused to violate my free speech — as it continues to be today.

The newest lawsuit seeks to force me to create a custom cake celebrating a gender transition, and now I’m before the Colorado Supreme Court in that case — with the support of a remarkable 22 states — after the Court of Appeals ruled that the law can be used to force me to express things I don’t believe.

Sadly, I’m not the only one. Colorado officials threatened to use the same law to compel Denver graphic artist Lorie Smith, owner of 303 Creative, to express messages she disagrees with. In June, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed what it has long held — that free speech is for everyone. Failure to correct this injustice would have established a precedent with ominous implications for every American — including you.

Hypothetical sitution for the courts to ponder:
Let’s say a pro-trans person or group requests that an editorialist for a major Colorado newspaper write an op-ed extolling the virtues of trans-males competing in sports against women, and lobbying for pro-tranny laws. But the editorialist opposes both the ideas and the legislation.

Can the requestor prevail in a lawsuit against the editorialist for refusing to publish opinions completely against his/her own beliefs and the positions of the newspaper or website? Jack Smith’s case as he argues it in this thread is basically same thing.

Do custom cake bakers have less constitutional rights than journalists? If so, on what basis? Could a pro-Palestinian group demand a cake decorated with beheaded babies, rockets and dead kibbutzniks?

So Jack Smith has already won once at SCOTUS but they limited their decision in a way that allowed continued lawfare harassment of Mr. Smith.

Since then they have smacked the Colorado law again in the Lori Smith/303 Creative case again in June. Yet the harassment of the baker continues.

If the Colorado doesn’t put and end to this lawfare with clear guidance or declaring the law void, it’s going to go to the 9th Circus and then back to SCOTUS for the 3rd time.

At which point SCOTUS might get a little testy about lower courts not taking the hints the first 2 times.

The real goal of course is to bankrupt dissenters from Wokery. This is why it so important to donate to outfits like Alliance Defending Freedom and Pacific Legal Foundation, who are doing the heavy lifting on this lawfare.

To respond to your question, under the 14th Amendment public accommodation argument being used by Colorado state government and the activists, the answer is yes.

The free speech counterargument is rooted in the First Amendment.

One has to wonder if the enforcement agency would be as dogged in its pursuit of “wrongdoing” if the complaint involved a request for a liberal bakery to produce a custom cake with an aggressively pro-conservative, pro-Christian theme; say a graphically antiabortion or anti-LGBTQ+ theme? Let the agency demonstrate its enthusiasm to enforcing the law equally. Otherwise, sue them.

Alternatively, the vendors could develop special pricing for offensive messages.

Want a pro-Trans coming out cake?

Sure. As an “offensive theme list” order, the cake’s price is $100,000.00 with a non refundable $25,000.00 deposit. And the cake’s creation will be outsourced to another bakery, minimum order time is six months, customer satisfaction is not guaranteed, etc. Discriminatory? Not at all. Anyone ordering from the offensive theme list will be charged exactly the same amount and subject to the same conditions.

More seriously, the misuse of state power alluded to in the article above is already here. There are a number of jurisdictions in the United States where deadnaming or misgendering or use of wrong pronouns has become an actionable offense under the law.

Thank you for referencing that article george76.

"GUEST COLUMN: What the state can do to me — it can do to you . ( Jack Phillips - Masterpiece Cakeshop )"

Regarding Mr. Philips being oppressed under the boots of an activist state government, please consider the following.

The main problem with this unconstitutional state abridgment of constitutionally enumerated protections is not only a state power problem, but on a larger scale also a federal problem imo.

More specifically, the corrupt, constitutionally undefined political parties that have pirated control of Congress are unsurprisingly not doing their sworn, constitutionally enumerated duty to exercise 14th Amendment (14A) powers to make laws that discourage misguided, activist states like Colorado from abridging constitutionally enumerated protections.

Excerpted from 14A:

"Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States [emphasis added]; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
"Section 5: The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article."

In fact, in the absence of federal protection laws, or unenforced federal laws, laws intended to protect people like Mr. Phillips from anti-Christian activist states in this example, Congress is wrongly looking the other way, effectively throwing Mr. Phelps to a line of activist shark judges, letting these judges get away with wrongly legislating anti-Christian laws from the bench imo.

On the other hand, consider that 14A has actually been successfully used relatively recently in California to protect citizens' 1st Amendment protections.

UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group (12.4.18)

So 14A isn't dead yet.

But I wouldn't be surprised if California taxpayers ultimately paid the settlement, effectively nullifying the intentions of the drafters of 14A if so imo.

And while some Christian denominations seemingly wash their hands of government authority because it is "evil," 14A protections in this example, note that Acts 22:23-29 shows that the Holy Spirit led Apostle Paul to claim his Roman citizenship to get out of a flogging.

The bottom line is this. Both Democratic and Republican Trump supporters need to primary ALL of their beloved incumbent state and federal lawmakers and executives up for reelection in 2024, except for MTG, Gaetz & Company, Jordan (and others?), not only to support hopeful Trump 47 with new state and federal lawmakers that support his pro-Constitution agenda, but also to make and enforce 14A-based laws that protect people like Mr. Phillips.

After all, evidenced by the legal system being weaponized against Christians like Mr. Phillips, lawmakers and executives continue to show that they do not have the patriotism and leadership skills necessary to find legislative support for effective remedies for unconstitutional government policies.

You may want to create a “designer club” or some other kind of special customer category. Limit designer service to those customers that pay the fee ($1 ???) to join the club, make a condition of the club membership that the designs provided by your business must be mutually agreed to. Specification and limitations in the club membership agreement.

If a customer wants a design that you agree to, fine.
If a customer wants a design that you dont agree to, you have the membership form to show that they AGREED that the design had to be MUTUALLY agreed to.

Might not stop the harassment but should make it easier for the lawsuit to be tossed out.

Yes. Usually part of civil rights investigation and enforcement under city and county governments.

Alternatively under school district or college/university DEI (Diversity,Equity, and Inclusion) offices. Ditto for larger corporations.

All part of HR (Human Resources/human rights) overreach.

Starting to pushback now. Some states are beginning to forbid the use of DEI metrics in hiring and promotion decisions. In my state (Florida) there is a concerted campaign to scour DEI and CRT (Critical Race Theory) out of public education. Still, the infection is massive and it is going to take strong countermeasures to clear it out.

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.