Trump Administration Backs Baker Who Declined to Make Cake for Same-Sex Celebration
BY HEATHER CLARK
SEE: http://christiannews.net/2017/09/09/trump-administration-backs-baker-who-declined-to-make-cake-for-same-sex-celebration/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Department of
Justice has filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court in support
of a Colorado baker who was ordered to make a cake for an event
celebrating the union of two homosexual men.
“The department filed an amicus brief in this case today
because the First Amendment protects the right of free expression for
all Americans,” spokesperson Lauren Ehrsam outlined in a statement on
Thursday.“Although public-accommodations laws serve important purposes, they—like other laws—must yield to the individual freedoms that the First Amendment guarantees,” she said. “That includes the freedom not to create expression for ceremonies that violate one’s religious beliefs.”
The government argued in the brief that creating a custom cake is indeed a form of artistic expression, and is also a mode of participation in the event.
“A custom wedding cake is a form of expression, whether pure speech or the product of expressive conduct. It is an artistic creation that is both subjectively intended and objectively perceived as a celebratory symbol of a marriage,” wrote Acting Solicitor General Jeff Wall.
“Like wedding rings, … a wedding cake is used in a ritual that signifies and celebrates the beginning of a marriage—namely, the ceremony in which the newlyweds cut the cake together and sometimes feed it to each other,” he noted. “This cake-cutting ceremony has ‘become one of the clearest and most essential rites of marrying’ in modern times, and ‘also one of the most potentially meaningful.’”
The Department argued, therefore, that forcing Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, a Christian, to make a cake for a same-sex celebration causes him to join in the event as a participant, in violation of his religious convictions that homosexuality is a transgression of the law of God.
“By producing a custom wedding cake for that ritual, Phillips participates in the wedding celebration in a meaningful way. Even though he may not always remain physically present at the wedding, he crafts and delivers his creative expression to the event,” Wall wrote.
“In that sense, Colorado’s public accommodations law compels Phillips not just to create expression, but also to participate in a wedding celebration that conflicts with his sincerely held religious beliefs,” the government stated.
Read the 41-page brief in full here.
As previously reported, the case began in 2012 when Dave Mullin and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado to look for options for their upcoming same-sex ceremony celebration. As Colorado—at the time—had 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 stated.
Phillips told Christian News Network that he does not make cakes for such events 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.”
However, Phillips says that it is not just same-sex celebrations that he declines. He also doesn’t create custom baked goods for bachelor parties or Halloween events, and remarked in a recent video that sometimes in a day he will turn down more requests than he accepts.
Phillips, who attends a Baptist church, said 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.”
Phillips said that he told the men that he would be happy to make them any other type of baked goods outside of having to facilitate the ceremony, which he believed was a form of personal participation. But Mullin and Craig complained to the Colorado Human Rights Commission with the help of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and have prevailed in their case ever since.
In December 2013, Judge Robert Spencer sided with the ACLU, contending that Phillips should have made the cake because he was not told that there would be any words or symbols written on it.
“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. “The act of preparing a cake is simply not ‘speech’ warranting First Amendment protection.”
In May 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission upheld Spencer’s ruling, stating that Phillips violated the state’s civil rights law. The Commission then ordered that Phillips educate his staff in alignment with the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, to implement new policies in light of the ruling, and to file quarterly compliance reports for two years. The reports were to outline each pastry creation request that was declined and the reason why to prove that Phillips’ religious beliefs no longer influence his business decisions.
Phillips filed an appeal with the Colorado Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court’s rulings in August 2015, asserting that providing the cake for the ceremony does not equal an endorsement of same-sex nuptials.
“Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece’s providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado’s public accommodations law,” the court ruled.
The matter was appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which declined to hear the case last year. Therefore, Phillips took his case to the nation’s highest court, which agreed in June to be the arbiter of the issue.
In addition to the U.S. Department of Justice, 20 states and over 80 members of Congress have joined in amicus briefs supporting Phillips’ religious rights. Over 500 creative professionals have also filed a joint brief stating that those who engage in artistic expression should be free from compelled speech.
“Artistic speech, whether expressed through painting a picture, taking a photograph, or designing a cake, is constitutionally protected and should be treated as such,” they explained. “The expression should neither be silenced nor coerced. Though the concern is currently most pressing in the same-sex wedding context, it is not so limited. Creative professionals of all stripes stand to suffer from undue compulsion, depending on how this court rules here.”
SEE ALSO:
First, the Department of Justice has come down on Phillips’ side in his dispute with the state over his decision to not create a wedding cake for a couple.
Then there are the briefs from 20 different states, 86 members of Congress, 479 creative professionals, 34 legal scholars, 33 family policy organizations, 22 Utah Republican state senators, and 14 legal and economic scholars.
In addition, he is supported by the Becket Fund, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Focus on the Family, Samaritan’s Purse, the Navigators, Tyndale House, Cato Institute, Christian Law Association, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Rabbinical Council of America, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Concerned Women for America, numerous Christian colleges, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, First Amendment Lawyers Association, Foundation for Moral Law, Aaron and Melissa Klein, Family Research Council, U.S. Justice Foundation, Thomas More Society and numerous Catholic groups, led by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
They believe that Phillips has the right under the U.S. Constitution to protect his religious rights by declining to support something that conflicts with his beliefs.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is arguing on Philips’ behalf before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall, cited 45 friend-of-the-court briefs that have been submitted to the high court in support of the Colorado cake artist.
Just days earlier, ADF filed its opening brief in the case.
WND reported ADF said Colorado is “consistently opposing” anyone who objects to publicly supporting same-sex “marriage.”
Phillips was ordered by the state’s Civil Rights Commission to provide his customized wedding cakes to same-sex duos if he provided them to anyone. He also was forced to undergo state-mandated, homosexual-rights thought training, along with his staff.
A member of the state’s Civil Rights Commission, Diann Rice, publicly exhibited bias against him during a hearing, comparing him to a Nazi.
“I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting,” Rice said during consideration of Phillips’ case. “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be – I mean, we – we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.”
ADF said such “animus” in a state is “alarming” and “has no place in civil society.”
The organization said Rice’s comment “suggests that other members of the commission may share her view that people who believe marriage is only between a man and a woman are comparable to those who committed the Holocaust.”
“This anti-religious bias undermines the integrity of the commission.”
ADF noted the support for Phillips is vast.
“As the numerous briefs filed in this case affirm, artists and other expressive professionals should be able to peacefully live and work according to their beliefs without fear of punishment by the government,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who will argue before the high court on behalf of Phillips and his shop. “We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the arguments in these briefs and declare that the government cannot force Jack to surrender his freedom in order to run his family business. Regardless of one’s view on marriage, all Americans should support Jack: To have First Amendment freedoms for ourselves, we must respect those same freedoms for people with whom we disagree on important issues.”
The United States’ brief recognized that “a custom wedding cake is a form of expression. … It is an artistic creation that is both subjectively intended and objectively perceived as a celebratory symbol of a marriage.”
The states argued the government “may not use their police power to truncate the First Amendment by compelling a person to create a piece of artwork – particularly one that violates the artist’s conscience.”
The nearly 500 creative professionals similarly assert: “Artistic speech, whether expressed through painting a picture, taking a photograph, or designing a cake, is constitutionally protected and should be treated as such. The expression should neither be silenced nor coerced. Though the concern is currently most pressing in the same-sex wedding context, it is not so limited. Creative professionals of all stripes stand to suffer from undue compulsion, depending on how this court rules here.”
ADF has posted a list of the briefs, as well as links to the court documentation.
ADF’s first briefing pointed out the antagonism religious believers face in Colorado.
“A review of all these situations reveals something striking: People of faith who do not support same-sex marriage always lose (in Colorado),” the legal team explained. “Whether they are the customer requesting an expressive item or the professional declining to create it, the commission consistently opposes them.
“This unequal application of the law impermissibly ‘single[s] out’ a specific religious belief ‘for discriminatory treatment,’” the brief states.
The lawyers explained that Phillips’ right to decline to promote homosexuality is protected by the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses.
“At issue here is whether Phillips may decline requests for wedding cakes that celebrate marriages in conflict with his religious beliefs. The First Amendment guarantees him that freedom because his wedding cakes, each one custom-made, are his artistic expression.
“Much like an artist sketching on canvas or a sculptor using clay, Phillips meticulously crafts each wedding cake through hours of sketching, sculpting, and hand-painting. The cake, which serves as the iconic centerpiece of the marriage celebration, announces through Phillips’s voice that a marriage has occurred and should be celebrated.
“The government can no more force Phillips to speak those messages with his lips than to express them through his art.”
Lower-court decisions in the Colorado court system are, therefore, mistaken, the brief contends.
ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner said tolerance “should be a two-way street.”
“Phillips gladly serves anyone who walks into his store, but, as is customary practice for many artists, he declines opportunities to design for a variety of events and messages that conflict with his deeply held beliefs. In this case, Jack told the couple suing him he’d sell them anything in the store but just couldn’t design a custom cake celebrating their wedding because of his Christian faith,” Waggoner said.
“The First Amendment protects Jack’s right to create artistic expression that is consistent with his core convictions. Individuals can support both same-sex marriage and Jack, and people should have the right to disagree on critical matters of conscience. The same government that can force Jack to violate his faith and conscience can force any one of us to do the same.”
The opening brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission explains: “Discovering that he could blend his skills as a pastry chef, sculptor, and painter, [Jack] spent nearly two decades in bakeries owned by others before opening Masterpiece Cakeshop twenty-four years ago.”
“Long before television shows like Cake Boss and Ace of Cakes, Phillips carefully chose Masterpiece’s name: it would not be just a bakery, but an art gallery of cakes. With this in mind, Phillips created a Masterpiece logo depicting an artist’s paint palate with a paintbrush and whisk. And for over a decade, a large picture has hung in the shop depicting Phillips painting at an easel. Since long before this case arose, Phillips has been an artist using cake as his canvas with Masterpiece as his studio,” the brief states.
“Phillips is also a man of deep religious faith whose beliefs guide his work,” the brief continues. “Those beliefs inspire him to love and serve people from all walks of life, but he can only create cakes that are consistent with the tenets of his faith. His decisions on whether to design a specific custom cake have never focused on who the customer is, but on what the custom cake will express or celebrate.”
The dispute erupted when Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed a complaint with the state after Phillips politely declined to promote their same-sex “marriage,” for which they traveled out of state since Colorado refused to recognize that status at the time.
Phillips explains he also refuses, based on his religious convictions, to make cakes that promote Halloween, anti-America attitudes, adult-themes and alcohol.
ADF points out Colorado has established not only a reputation for bias against Phillips but against Christians.
“In contrast to the ruling against Phillips, the commission found in 2015 that three other Denver cake artists were not guilty of creed discrimination when they declined a Christian customer’s request for a cake that reflected his religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The commission found those bakers had the right not to create custom cakes based on the requested message,” ADF said.
The brief notes that since the fight has moved up to the U.S. Supreme Court, “the Colorado Court of Appeals and the commission have conceded that some cakes are artistic expression protected under the First Amendment.”
But, ADF said, “Philips’s custom wedding cakes, they have told us, are not among them.”
TIDAL WAVE OF SUPPORT FOR COLORADO BAKER
HITS SUPREME COURT
http://the-trumpet-online.com/tidal-wave-support-colorado-baker-hits-supreme-court/;
republished below in full unedited for informational, educational, and research purposes:
The list of defenders of Colorado baker Jack Phillips in his case
against Colorado’s order that he promote same-sex marriage in violation
of his faith reads like a who’s who of America’s leaders.First, the Department of Justice has come down on Phillips’ side in his dispute with the state over his decision to not create a wedding cake for a couple.
Then there are the briefs from 20 different states, 86 members of Congress, 479 creative professionals, 34 legal scholars, 33 family policy organizations, 22 Utah Republican state senators, and 14 legal and economic scholars.
In addition, he is supported by the Becket Fund, the Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, Focus on the Family, Samaritan’s Purse, the Navigators, Tyndale House, Cato Institute, Christian Law Association, Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod, the National Association of Evangelicals, the Rabbinical Council of America, the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, Concerned Women for America, numerous Christian colleges, the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, First Amendment Lawyers Association, Foundation for Moral Law, Aaron and Melissa Klein, Family Research Council, U.S. Justice Foundation, Thomas More Society and numerous Catholic groups, led by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
They believe that Phillips has the right under the U.S. Constitution to protect his religious rights by declining to support something that conflicts with his beliefs.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, which is arguing on Philips’ behalf before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall, cited 45 friend-of-the-court briefs that have been submitted to the high court in support of the Colorado cake artist.
Just days earlier, ADF filed its opening brief in the case.
WND reported ADF said Colorado is “consistently opposing” anyone who objects to publicly supporting same-sex “marriage.”
Phillips was ordered by the state’s Civil Rights Commission to provide his customized wedding cakes to same-sex duos if he provided them to anyone. He also was forced to undergo state-mandated, homosexual-rights thought training, along with his staff.
A member of the state’s Civil Rights Commission, Diann Rice, publicly exhibited bias against him during a hearing, comparing him to a Nazi.
“I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting,” Rice said during consideration of Phillips’ case. “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be – I mean, we – we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.”
ADF said such “animus” in a state is “alarming” and “has no place in civil society.”
The organization said Rice’s comment “suggests that other members of the commission may share her view that people who believe marriage is only between a man and a woman are comparable to those who committed the Holocaust.”
“This anti-religious bias undermines the integrity of the commission.”
ADF noted the support for Phillips is vast.
“As the numerous briefs filed in this case affirm, artists and other expressive professionals should be able to peacefully live and work according to their beliefs without fear of punishment by the government,” said ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who will argue before the high court on behalf of Phillips and his shop. “We hope the U.S. Supreme Court will consider the arguments in these briefs and declare that the government cannot force Jack to surrender his freedom in order to run his family business. Regardless of one’s view on marriage, all Americans should support Jack: To have First Amendment freedoms for ourselves, we must respect those same freedoms for people with whom we disagree on important issues.”
The United States’ brief recognized that “a custom wedding cake is a form of expression. … It is an artistic creation that is both subjectively intended and objectively perceived as a celebratory symbol of a marriage.”
The states argued the government “may not use their police power to truncate the First Amendment by compelling a person to create a piece of artwork – particularly one that violates the artist’s conscience.”
The nearly 500 creative professionals similarly assert: “Artistic speech, whether expressed through painting a picture, taking a photograph, or designing a cake, is constitutionally protected and should be treated as such. The expression should neither be silenced nor coerced. Though the concern is currently most pressing in the same-sex wedding context, it is not so limited. Creative professionals of all stripes stand to suffer from undue compulsion, depending on how this court rules here.”
ADF has posted a list of the briefs, as well as links to the court documentation.
ADF’s first briefing pointed out the antagonism religious believers face in Colorado.
“A review of all these situations reveals something striking: People of faith who do not support same-sex marriage always lose (in Colorado),” the legal team explained. “Whether they are the customer requesting an expressive item or the professional declining to create it, the commission consistently opposes them.
“This unequal application of the law impermissibly ‘single[s] out’ a specific religious belief ‘for discriminatory treatment,’” the brief states.
The lawyers explained that Phillips’ right to decline to promote homosexuality is protected by the First Amendment’s Free Speech and Free Exercise clauses.
“At issue here is whether Phillips may decline requests for wedding cakes that celebrate marriages in conflict with his religious beliefs. The First Amendment guarantees him that freedom because his wedding cakes, each one custom-made, are his artistic expression.
“Much like an artist sketching on canvas or a sculptor using clay, Phillips meticulously crafts each wedding cake through hours of sketching, sculpting, and hand-painting. The cake, which serves as the iconic centerpiece of the marriage celebration, announces through Phillips’s voice that a marriage has occurred and should be celebrated.
“The government can no more force Phillips to speak those messages with his lips than to express them through his art.”
Lower-court decisions in the Colorado court system are, therefore, mistaken, the brief contends.
ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner said tolerance “should be a two-way street.”
“Phillips gladly serves anyone who walks into his store, but, as is customary practice for many artists, he declines opportunities to design for a variety of events and messages that conflict with his deeply held beliefs. In this case, Jack told the couple suing him he’d sell them anything in the store but just couldn’t design a custom cake celebrating their wedding because of his Christian faith,” Waggoner said.
“The First Amendment protects Jack’s right to create artistic expression that is consistent with his core convictions. Individuals can support both same-sex marriage and Jack, and people should have the right to disagree on critical matters of conscience. The same government that can force Jack to violate his faith and conscience can force any one of us to do the same.”
The opening brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission explains: “Discovering that he could blend his skills as a pastry chef, sculptor, and painter, [Jack] spent nearly two decades in bakeries owned by others before opening Masterpiece Cakeshop twenty-four years ago.”
“Long before television shows like Cake Boss and Ace of Cakes, Phillips carefully chose Masterpiece’s name: it would not be just a bakery, but an art gallery of cakes. With this in mind, Phillips created a Masterpiece logo depicting an artist’s paint palate with a paintbrush and whisk. And for over a decade, a large picture has hung in the shop depicting Phillips painting at an easel. Since long before this case arose, Phillips has been an artist using cake as his canvas with Masterpiece as his studio,” the brief states.
“Phillips is also a man of deep religious faith whose beliefs guide his work,” the brief continues. “Those beliefs inspire him to love and serve people from all walks of life, but he can only create cakes that are consistent with the tenets of his faith. His decisions on whether to design a specific custom cake have never focused on who the customer is, but on what the custom cake will express or celebrate.”
The dispute erupted when Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed a complaint with the state after Phillips politely declined to promote their same-sex “marriage,” for which they traveled out of state since Colorado refused to recognize that status at the time.
Phillips explains he also refuses, based on his religious convictions, to make cakes that promote Halloween, anti-America attitudes, adult-themes and alcohol.
ADF points out Colorado has established not only a reputation for bias against Phillips but against Christians.
“In contrast to the ruling against Phillips, the commission found in 2015 that three other Denver cake artists were not guilty of creed discrimination when they declined a Christian customer’s request for a cake that reflected his religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The commission found those bakers had the right not to create custom cakes based on the requested message,” ADF said.
The brief notes that since the fight has moved up to the U.S. Supreme Court, “the Colorado Court of Appeals and the commission have conceded that some cakes are artistic expression protected under the First Amendment.”
But, ADF said, “Philips’s custom wedding cakes, they have told us, are not among them.”
