#SCOTUS Will Hear Masterpiece Cakeshop Religious Objection Case [VIDEO]

#SCOTUS Will Hear Masterpiece Cakeshop Religious Objection Case [VIDEO]

#SCOTUS Will Hear Masterpiece Cakeshop Religious Objection Case [VIDEO]

SCOTUS was busy today! Multiple cases were finalized and cases that will be heard this fall were announced. That includes Deanna’s post about SCOTUS keeping President Trump’s travel stay in place. Another case that has been slowly navigating the court docket will be heard next term.

The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111, started in 2012, when the baker, Jack Phillips, an owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., refused to create a cake for the wedding reception of David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who were planning to marry in Massachusetts. The couple filed discrimination charges, and they won before a civil rights commission and in the courts.

Needless to say, the noise and misinformation surrounding this case have led to many a misunderstanding of what the case is about.

The baker, Jack Phillips, was approached to make a cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig. Phillips refused to make a specialty cake, but did offer to sell them something already made. Quite frankly, that should’ve been the end of it. In my opinion Mullins and Craig should’ve just shrugged their shoulders and found another baker to make a cake. But they didn’t.

Instead the calls and the protests started within 30 minutes of the two leaving Phillips’ shop. Mullins and Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the cake batter hit the fan on a world-wide scale, and the court battles started.

Now, five years later, SCOTUS will hear the case. A year ago, Jack Phillips wrote an op-ed for the Denver Post. In it he wrote that he views all his work as artistic and as such the ability to craft and communicate the messages his clients request also includes part of his own soul. 

That’s why, when asked to create a cake that would celebrate a same-sex wedding ceremony, I couldn’t do it. The message I would be supporting with my talents is not a message I agree with or can pour myself into communicating effectively. It’s not about selling cookies or cupcakes; it’s about investing some part of my creative soul into communicating an idea my heart rejects.

That’s an important distinction to me, even if it seems to be lost on so many others: I’m rejecting an idea, not a person. There is no policy at my shop, real or imagined, that says, “We don’t sell cakes to homosexuals.” I’ll sell anyone any cake I’ve got. But I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. I also won’t use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.

Jack also makes a very clear and distinct point that should resonate with ALL Americans.

Our government is not only telling Jack what he can and cannot do, it is telling Jack what he CAN and CANNOT BELIEVE.

And that, in my opinion, is so very wrong.

Our First Amendment is very clear. It’s Freedom OF Religion. Not Freedom from certain religions/faiths/beliefs that you don’t agree with or dislike.

Another bakery in Colorado was asked to make a cake and write anti-gay messages on it last year. Azucar Bakery rightly refused because it was discriminatory. And I’d be willing to bet the personal beliefs of the baker played a role in that decision. One other item to note: the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld Azucar’s decision because they’d offered to make the cake without the writing and provide the customer with the tools necessary to complete the cake. Splitting a pretty fine hair if you ask me.

Needless to say, there is much at stake with this case. Will Masterpiece Cakeshop prevail? Will our Constitution and First Amendment rights prevail? Time will tell.

Written by

  • Scott says:

    I sure hope they do the right thing, and rule in the cake shops favor. I find it odd how some religious groups have such an issue with things like Harry Potter, or Halloween etc. I don’t see anything in my bible that says fantasy or make believe are wrong in such cases, but finding such objections odd is a far cry from demanding that they not be allowed stand by such beliefs. I believe this was a set-up by the couple involved from the beginning. I don’t think for a second that they went into his store expecting to have a cake made, this was about the publicity all along.
    Best of luck Mr. Phillips

  • GWB says:

    In my opinion Mullins and Craig should’ve just shrugged their shoulders and found another baker to make a cake. But they didn’t.

    No, of course not. Because this was never about celebrating a moment of love. It was always about MAKING EVERYONE CATER TO THE ACTIVISTS. They went into that shop hoping to be turned down (he1l, they might have even been recruited for it).

    They don’t want tolerance, they want validation. You don’t care? YOU WILL BE MADE TO CARE. Because their perverted egos demand stroking.

    But, somehow the Christians and conservatives are the “fascists”. *smfh*

  • GWB says:

    Tyler O’Neil, on PJ Media says,

    On one hand, conservatives would argue that Phillips had a triple First Amendment right to do so. He had the right to free speech, to avoid an artistic action which could be seen as an endorsement of something he doesn’t believe in. He had the right to free association, to avoid associating with the LGBT movement in this way. He had the right of free exercise of religion, to live and do business by the dictates of his own conscience.

    On the other hand, liberals (and the ACLU) would argue that Phillips was engaging in unlawful discrimination against the gay couple on the basis of their sexual orientation. The problem is, Phillips wasn’t refusing to serve them as people, but the specific event with which he disagreed.

    Note the argument is Freedom vs. Discrimination. Funny, but I only find “equal” in one place in the Constitution as it pertains to rights, and that’s the 14th Amendment. And it is specifically talking about laws. Period.
    Whereas, I find those freedoms mentioned in the very first amendment to the Constitution.

    So, to reconcile those points, I would have to assume that no law could take away those freedoms, period. And all other laws must respect those freedoms. AND that any law requiring you to not discriminate in your own personal interactions* would be subject to those restrictions, but discriminating in making laws would be bad.
    What is it with progs and a lack of reading comprehension?

    (* Yes, I know that they have deemed my running a business as not being “personal interactions”. Somehow, by offering my services to folks, I become public property. Not finding that one anywhere in the Constitution, either. Though it seems it’s strongly hinted at in the 5th Amendment.)

    • Nina says:

      Spot on GWB. That’s the problematic part of this case. IMO – The government is basically saying our freedom of belief/religion must come to a complete halt at the doorstep of the business the owner runs. I’ve looked and I sure don’t see that law anywhere in the Constitution.

  • Robin H says:

    As a baker I totally understand the difference between an off the shelf cake and a custom cake. It’s the difference between going into an artists studio and buying a painting that’s already been done versus commissioning the artist to paint something specific. We put our artistic vision into what we do and the cake is the canvas.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner