Colorado Judge Orders Christian Baker To Make Cakes For Same-sex Ceremonies Or Face Fines.

Discussion in 'General Discussions' started by RosaVera, Dec 9, 2013.

  1. Colorado Judge Orders Christian Baker to Make Cakes for Same-Sex Ceremonies or Face Fines

    December 7, 2013 | By: Heather Clark

    [​IMG]DENVER – An administrative law judge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has ordered a baker to make cakes for clients who request service for same-sex ceremonies, despite his Christian beliefs not to partake in another man’s sins.

    “Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech. … It is not the same as forcing a person to pledge allegiance to the government or to display a motto with which they disagree,” wrote Judge Robert N. Spencer in his ruling on Friday, ordering the baker to “cease and desist” under the threat of fines.

    As previously reported, Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cake Shop in Lakewood in July 2012 to look for options for their upcoming same-sex ceremony celebration. As Colorado has a constitutional amendment enshrining marriage as being between a man and a woman, the men planned to travel to Massachusetts and then return to Colorado for a separate celebration.

    However, after their arrival at the cake shop, Mullin and Craig were advised by owner Jack Phillips that he does not make cakes for same-sex ceremonies.

    “My first comment was, ‘We’re getting married,’ and he just shut that down immediately,” Craig, 31, stated.

    Phillips told Christian News Network that he does not make cakes for such occasions because of his Christian convictions.

    “I’m a follower of Jesus Christ, and I believe that the relationship is not something that He looks favorably on,” the master pastry chef stated. “If Jesus was a carpenter, He wouldn’t make a bed for this union.”

    Connect with Christian News

    Phillips, who attends a Baptist church, explained that when he informed Mullin and Craig that his bakery does not make cakes for same-sex “weddings,” the men immediately left. He stated that one of them made a comment on his way out the door that the bakery was a “homophobic cake shop.”

    Mullin, 28, indicated to Denver Westward that is indeed what took place.

    “It was the most awkward, surreal, very brief encounter,” he stated. “We got up to leave, and to be totally honest, I said, ‘(expletive) and your homophobic cake shop.’ And I may or may not have flipped him off.”

    Mullin and Craig then filed charges with the Colorado Human Rights Commission, which heard the case this week. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) represented the men, and Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) affiliate Nicolle Martin represented Phillips.

    The ACLU asserted that Phillip’s faith did not give him a “license to discriminate,” while Martin argued that Phillips’ obedience to God encompassed his business practices. According to reports, Phillips was willing to serve the men, but drew the line when it came to facilitating their ceremony. Martin told commentator Todd Starnes that Phillips also declines to make Halloween cookies at his bakery, so his beliefs are lived out in more than one aspect.

    But Judge Spencer sided with the ACLU on Friday, contending that Phillips should have made the cake because he was not told that there would be any words or symbols written on it—and that is what would make the difference in the eyes of the law.

    “Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage,” he wrote. “For all Phillips knew at the time, Complainants might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding. Therefore, Respondents’ claim that they refused to provide a cake because it would convey a message supporting same-sex marriage is specious.”

    “The act of preparing a cake is simply not ‘speech’ warranting First Amendment protection,” Spencer asserted.

    Following the ruling, the ACLU applauded Spencer’s decision.

    “No one is asking Masterpiece’s owners to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple,” said attorney Amanda Goad.

    But ADF attorney Nicole Martin said that faith is about living out God’s commandments in obedience, not merely formulating an opinion or belief.

    “America was founded on the fundamental freedom of every citizen to live and work according to their beliefs,” she told reporters. “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 aware our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away,” Martin said.

    Appeal options are now being considered.


    The baker says that by him making the cake for this couple violates his faith... of course the ACLU is involved in this and i am sure they went after $$$ penalties...

    We know that God does not mince words on this and He forbids men with men and women with women... yet in our daily life today if we criticize or stand up for our faith and do what this baker stood up for we will be condemned by our friends even our own family, and like this baker it could lead to be brought up in front of a judge. Does this baker in his business have the right to stand up for his faith...?

  2. Jack should bake the cake. Make it his worse ever for double the price ;).
  3. I know you're making a joke, and I get it, but of course if the State will swoop in to regulate his clientele, they'll also swoop in to regulate his pricing.

    It is his business, he should choose who he wants to do business with, whether we agree with him or not. The couple should have said "He won't do business with us -- I suppose this means we'll do our business elsewhere." I'm not sure how that is so complicated.
    RosaVera likes this.
  4. A good example of this how we, not of the gay community, when we don't like a business we just go elsewhere. Hallmark bothers me, they have a mandate in their store from headquarters apparently that they cannot put up a sign that says Merry Christmas or Happy Easter, yet they make millions selling their Christmas and Easter cards and gift... i asked my neighborhood Hallmark store to please put up a sign that wishes us Merry Christmas and this is when he told me this, so i leave and now refuse to do business with him... i can buy cards just as beautiful anywhere else i see a store with the sign at this particular time commemorating Jesus and honoring our holy time for Christians. Probably if i choose i could sue Hallmark, anyone can sue for any reason in America, but i don't but the store owner knows why i don't go in...and he does not care. There is no law that says they can't put a sign that says Merry Christmas...
  5. Were Hallmark mandated to not put up Merry Christmas/Happy Easter signs, or did they make the business decision not to use those phrases? If it's the latter, then it was simply a business move, which I do understand coming from a business mentality. However, I can understand the concern from a Christian position that even those phrases of good will offend people.
  6. He told me that headquarters had advised him not to put up Christmas signs or Easter signs, and he is Christian. If this is a business decision i don't see how it may be, or who it would offend, since this year, especially after Hanukkah, it is definitely Christmas. The business decision not to offend in my opinion does not stand here, besides all the stores, all the businesses, make billions on Christmas starting from black Friday, it is probably their biggest selling time ... i do see a lot more stores and bid chains giving us honor by putting up Christmas signs or in their ads, and i do let them know my appreciation. It used to be that on TV and in stores it would be Happy Hanukkah and Merry Christmas, now it is neither and the billions they make on our holy time should prompt them to at least honor Christmas.
  7. By the way this decision by Hallmark is many years ago and hopefully all have noticed how there are more Happy Holiday cards than Merry Christmas ...
  8. It's pretty simple. We're a country of laws, and among those laws are businesses that are open to the public are prohibited from discriminating in their business practices. This is no different than if the baker had been a racist and refused to serve an interracial couple.

    And I question the baker's justification of citing "his Christian beliefs not to partake in another man’s sins". Really? Does he refuse to serve obese people (gluttony)? The super wealthy (greed)? Anyone who's ever....well, done anything wrong?
  9. I don't see greedy or obese people being stoned to death OT, the prophets OT and NT, like Jack, have brains to judge. Of course a greedy person who has hurt many would never be open about it, thereby exempting Jack completely ;). Murderers, sure. Thieves, maybe (cash up front). As for races... OT = love neighbour as yourself Lev 19:18 and NT = Matt 22:39. Did you really not know that? or are you once more being deceitful and showing your lack of conscience on sin? 1 Tim 4:2.
  10. You're asking a reasonable question.

    I think it should be noted that while the gay couple can indeed get married and perform their ceremony, the baker should also be allowed to perform his business as he sees fit. He has no intentions of intervening on their ceremony and they should respect his position and not interfere with his business.

    The sensible thing to do would be to realize that this baker is someone they are not happy with and would prefer not to lend him their business even if he accepted them as customers. It would be far more productive to seek out one of his competitors.

    Simply having "laws" isn't justified enough. Any law can be made, but not every law is valid. Wouldn't you agree with me that a law prohibiting some from marrying is an unjust law, RiverJordan?
    RosaVera likes this.
  11. Not the same... and being gay is in my opinion a sexual preference not a racial matter, but let us say you are the baker and are as true a follower of Christ as this baker is, imagine to have to sit with these two, talking to them about their preference of cake, the color, the shape, the flavor of the cake, how many tiers, and have to watch as the one who is the 'woman' will with act like a real woman and put up a fuss about 'his' preferences ... baking this cake is catering to them, and he does not have the heart to be able to stand there and do with joy what he does best... it would take a lot of praying to be standing there and to listen as they act out as a man and a woman do...

    i read this and i agree, we must always guard our heart and not let us be confused or forced into a false belief:
    “Jesus fights the devil: first criterion. Second criterion: he who is not with Jesus is against Jesus. There are no attitudes in the middle. Third criterion: vigilance over our hearts because the devil is astute. He is never cast out forever. It will only be so on the last day.”

    Also the question is , where there no other bakeries in the area...? and how do we know that this couple did not target this bakery just because of his belief...? In Pennsylvania an incredibly effective adoption agency had to close down or be forced to give children in adoption to gay couples... now who suffered in this...? A photographer was also forced to have to take wedding pictures for a gay couple even though they were confirmed Christians... they had to take pictures while they married, while they kissed, while they held hands and made believe they were man and woman marrying... would you be able to do this...?
  12. Really? That's your basis for what is or isn't a sin? Whether it's punishable by death in the OT?

    You're missing the point. We have laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of race, right? Likewise, we have laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. So according to the law, this business owner is guilty.

    Now, if you're going to argue that the law is bad and conservative Christian businesses should be able to discriminate against gays, then why can't racist business owners discriminate against interracial couples?
  13. Sexual orientation and racial discrimination are not the same...period. So, in your words a person of faith that follows the Gospels to the tee should not be in business...
  14. Does that apply to all cases? Racist business owners can exclude who they see fit? We can go back to signs like "Whites Only", "No Jews", or "Irish Need Not Apply"?

    How is asking a baker to bake a cake "interfering with his business"?

    So why do we have non-discrimination laws on the books at all?

    From a legal standpoint, the baker has no case. (And yes, a law prohibiting adults from marrying would be unjust)

    Now, if you want to debate the merits of having such laws in the first place, I refer you to my earlier question. Why do we have non-discrimination laws at all?
  15. What's the fundamental difference to you between a business owner that refuses to sell to a gay couple and one that refuses to sell to an interracial couple?
  16. I really don't get how you don't get it River. My post could not be simpler. Being racist is opposing scripture....being homosexual is opposing scripture. Your argument is ridiculous.

    Jack not condoning homosexual marriage / sin by baking cake = (y). Jack not serving because of colour = (n). Jack serving murderers knowingly = (n). Jack serving murderers unknowingly = (y). Jack, knowingly serving greedy man who has hurt many = (n). Jack, unknowingly serving greedy man who has hurt many = (y). Jack serving closet gays = (y). Jack serving boastful gays = (n). Jack serving obese who have deprived their children of food = (n). Jack serving obese who just eat too much = light cake (y).
    RosaVera likes this.
  17. RiverJordan, you are going to hate me for this. The answer is yes--a business owner does indeed have the right to deny anyone of their services, even if it is racially driven. Would I support such a business? Absolutely not. I'd boycott it and make sure people knew how horrible this business is. However, property rights are still valid. "Whites Only" or "Blacks Only" or "Asians Only" businesses would be vile and disgusting, but it is nonetheless their choice. Most likely, especially by today's standards, their business would fail and they would only be hurting themselves. Most businesses don't want to fail.

    It's not. Asking a baker to bake to do business with him -- I see nothing wrong with that. Getting legal action to interject on his business simply because they don't like the way he does it is interfering with his business.

    Non-discrimination laws are absolutely right when it comes to realizing that all people are equal. Jim Crow, for instance, was a disgusting government program that had to be struck down. But using that to rule over property rights is different.

    The baker has a case. The Bill of Rights at least allows support in his case -- 6 of the 10 origin amendments
    pertain either directly or indirectly to private property rights.

    The non-discrimination laws are absolutely valid as standing for that all people are equal and therefor have equal rights. This means everyone has the right to associate, assemble, speech, worship or not worship, and a right to their property. Telling someone what they can and cannot do with their own property would be an unjust law.
  18. You're still missing the point. Whether racism is scriptural isn't the question.

    You guys are arguing that if a business owner says "I refuse to serve gays because of my religious beliefs", that should be perfectly legal. By the same token then, a business owner can say "I refuse to serve interracial couples because of my religious beliefs".

    What those religious beliefs are is irrelevant.
  19. The law clearly says otherwise. And frankly, I'm not surprised to see you argue against non-discrimination laws given your borderline anarchist political views..

    History shows it doesn't work that way. I guess you must have really hated the civil rights era, eh?

    I understand that to an extreme libertarian, any "interference" is bad. I'm just glad I don't live in such a society.

    Property rights? He's operating a business in the public square.

    No he doesn't. That's why in all of these cases (including this one), the business owners lose. You can say "he has a case" all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that he, and others like him, lost.

    Again, I realize that's what the libertarian-anarchist viewpoint is. However, that's not the system under which we live.
  20. Don't be mistaken; I absolutely argue for non-discrimination laws. But I also argue for private property rights.

    Why would you say that? The Civil Rights movement was one of the best things to happen to this country. However, the case for it interjecting on private property rights is something to review again.

    I think you're seeing me as a racist who wants discrimination. That's a bit too simplistic. I'd in fact not be able to marry my wife if the discrimination laws were still in action as we're interracial.

    You are absolutely free to your opinion. I respectfully disagree with you, friend.

    Yes, but as he rents the space, pays for the supplies, and uses his labor outside of public domain, it is private property. It is not publicly funded and not public domain. Any given shop is private property.

    A law can be unjust. Many of them are. We can't make the argument that sometimes laws are unjust and then later say "but if it's a law, then it's a law."

    Indeed, it isn't. Under this current system, the government can dictate who can marry and who can't, what one can do with his business, and what one can and cannot say. And I realize that you're a Liberal, but a right is not something given--rights are extensions of our own humanity.

    Tolerance is something to be promoted. We should be trying to extend the idea that people need to tolerate others. The strangest part of all is that tolerance even means tolerating one's opinions, no matter how horrible they are, so long as they are not intervening on anyone else. Keep in mind, we can't tolerate something we like or agree with -- we can only tolerate things we dislike or don't agree with.

Share This Page