Denver | Discrimination | News

Bakery Owner Who Refused Gay Wedding Cake Because of Jesus Goes Before Court: VIDEO


Back in the summer of 2012 we reported on Denver's Masterpiece Cake Shop and its refusal to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. The bakery's owner Jack Philips said he would close up shop rather than be forced to bake a gay wedding cake.

Phillips is being sued and the case is going before the court this week, KDVR reports:

A judge will decide if Jack Phillips violated discrimination laws—by refusing to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple last summer.

Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig couldn’t believe it when Phillips refused them service. They got angry. And they didn’t let it go. Now, they’re hoping to force Phillips to change what they say is a discriminatory policy.

“Being discriminated against is a form of personal invalidation. It’s being degraded and put on a lower level than other people in society,” says  Mullins about how humiliated he and Craig felt on July 19, 2012, when Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop told them his business doesn’t make cakes for gay weddings. He says Colorado doesn’t recognize same-sex marriages. And also that they’re (gay relationships) against his religious beliefs.

“I am a follower of Jesus Christ. So you could say it’s a religious belief. I believe the Bible teaches it’s not an OK thing,” is what Phillips told us last July.

Watch their new report on the case, AFTER THE JUMP...


Feed This post's comment feed


  1. Jesus said: "Feed the hungry."

    Marie Antoinette said: "Let them eat cake!"

    Dude, it's not a "gay cake", it's just cake. Not everyone that eats it is going to be gay, just bake it and let it go. You do your religion a great disservice to use it as a tool for your intolerance and bigotry.

    Posted by: johnny | Dec 5, 2013 10:15:46 AM

  2. Gay dollars are just as green and spend just as well as straight dollars. When are these rubes gonna learn what it means to be Americans?

    Americans shut the hell up and take the money.

    Posted by: FFS | Dec 5, 2013 10:45:38 AM

  3. They asked him to bake a cake----not have gay sex. When will these bigots learn they can't hide behind the bible and Jesus when they clearly don't understand his teachings.

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 5, 2013 10:52:55 AM

  4. I wouldn't want such an idiot touching/making my food or getting my money.

    Posted by: Paul R | Dec 5, 2013 10:54:02 AM

  5. If you follow Jesus Christ, truly, then you would probably make the cake. If you are a follower of the old testament, maybe not. If you are a follower of the born again bigot preachers, then you will definitely make an ass of yourself.

    Posted by: Critifur | Dec 5, 2013 10:59:48 AM

  6. I very much hope the courts rule against this bigotted "Christian", who like so many of them does not seem to realize that there is not one single word uttered about homosexuality by Jesus Christ in their holy book. I also hopes he shuts down his business after the ruling. I wouldn't want him baking a cake for anyone he so obviously hates.

    Posted by: Matt Darren | Dec 5, 2013 11:00:51 AM

  7. I very much hope the courts rule against this bigotted "Christian", who like so many of them does not seem to realize that there is not one single word uttered about homosexuality by Jesus Christ in their holy book. I also hopes he shuts down his business after the ruling. I wouldn't want him baking a cake for anyone he so obviously hates.

    Posted by: Matt Darren | Dec 5, 2013 11:00:52 AM

  8. Lawyer: "Did the gentlemen there ask you to bake a cake, or have gay sex with them?"

    Baker: "Bake a cake."

    Lawyer: "Ok. Here is the Bible. Please show us where you are prohibited from baking a cake?"


    Lawyer: "On a side note, that shirt you are wearing is clearly a mix of two different fabrics---Leviticus 19:19. Which is not allowed in the Bible. You sir, are clearly going to hell."

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 5, 2013 11:07:02 AM

  9. Jesus Christ indeed! Where in the New Testament does JC say anything - ANYTHING - against gay people or gay relationships? You proclaim to follow JC but you don't follow what he said or even what he stood for. What kind of non-Christian Christian are you???

    Posted by: HadenoughBS | Dec 5, 2013 11:30:54 AM

  10. In my opinion, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig were in the wrong for wanting this baker to go against his conscience. Getting a cake is not a civil right. They could have easily taken their business elsewhere. While they complain about him forcing their views on them, they are doing the same thing by forcing their views on him.

    What if the shoe were on the other foot and a GLBT Center were forced to accommodate a hate group or be prosecuted?

    On matters of real civil rights, I would completely be on their side, but in this case I think they are being bullies. If we want people to respect our consciences, we need to give other people that same courtesy.

    Posted by: Neil | Dec 5, 2013 11:36:44 AM

  11. So, why this bakery? Why not take their business somewhere else? Then do an online campaign and get everybody to give the business a bad rating until no one shops there? Sometimes I wonder how much it matters? I mean, christians are scum. Why even do business with them?

    Posted by: jamal49 | Dec 5, 2013 11:37:30 AM

  12. That why every state needs anti discrimination laws which include sexual orientation.

    Posted by: epsilon | Dec 5, 2013 11:44:31 AM

  13. @Neil - Actually, in this instance, they did have a civil right to a cake. Non-discrimination laws are written for exactly these circumstances. When you open a business to the public, you can't simply pick a class of people that are not welcome as customers. There are exceptions where a class may be excluded - minors are not allowed in bars, for example. Those signs that say something like "Management reserves the right to refuse service..." only mean that an individual can be refused service if they are in some way disrupting normal business - a drunk in a bar, for example.

    The reason it is important to not simply go elsewhere is that is discrimination - and no one should tolerate discrimination.

    Posted by: MikeBoston | Dec 5, 2013 11:45:50 AM

  14. What if the customers were black or female, and this cakehater denied them service based on his religion, would all you noob apologists say he had every right to do what he is doing?

    Posted by: epsilon | Dec 5, 2013 11:46:03 AM

  15. @Neil & @Jamal49: Non-discrimination laws are in place for a reason, to prevent businesses from targeting a group for exclusion. States are saying: this is your deal if you want to have a business here. In this case it was a gay couple, but the same law would apply if a business hung out a NO BLACKS JEWS CHRISTIANS WOMEN ETC ALLOWED. Business owners can hold whatever beliefs they like, but they can't use them as an excuse to discriminate.

    The point isn't that a couple couldn't go elsewhere (am sure they'd want to) but that businesses that can't abide by state law and give equal respect to all customers should not be in business. Those who think it's ok for businesses to discriminate should oppose all non-discrimination laws, unless they think religious people deserve a special right to discriminate?

    Posted by: Ernie | Dec 5, 2013 11:52:06 AM

  16. If you want to run a church, run a church. If you want to run a bakery (or a hotel or a wedding hall), then you can't discriminate.

    And yes, by law, they have the civil right to a cake. Period.

    Posted by: Hdtex | Dec 5, 2013 11:53:15 AM

  17. Laws like these are typically very clearcut. I'm surprised it's gotten this far.

    Posted by: anon | Dec 5, 2013 11:56:24 AM

  18. @MikeBoston He didn't refuse a class of people service based on their orientation. He was perfectly willing to sell them whatever they wanted. He refused to bake a particular type of cake for a ceremony that went against his conscience.

    It is a matter of religious freedom and conscience.

    Posted by: Neil | Dec 5, 2013 11:57:03 AM

  19. Wonder what they would say if you told them the cakes is for a straight couple but there are going to be gays at the wedding who are going to eat it

    Posted by: Johnny | Dec 5, 2013 12:05:39 PM

  20. Jesus met a gay man, via the Roman Centurion, and said of him, "Never have I seen faith greater than this" and did NOT end it with "now go and sin no more." Jesus also mentions gay men as 'born eunuchs' in Matthew and again did not condemn.

    Posted by: Michael | Dec 5, 2013 12:05:43 PM

  21. So if I have a business licensed to serve the public, and I decide it is against my religion to serve "Christians," I should be able to do so? Is that what those who refuse to serve gay couples believe - that religious belief trumps the law? I am sure they would be crying "discrimination" all the way to the Supreme Court if anyone refused to serve them.

    Posted by: john patrick | Dec 5, 2013 12:07:44 PM

  22. You are incorrect, @Neil. He could refuse to bake wedding cakes for all customers, but he was only refusing to bake a wedding cake for gay customers. That is targeting a group for exclusion, and it is illegal in CO. It is definitely not a matter of religious "freedom" unless you believe the religious have a special right to discriminate or that we live in a theocracy.

    Posted by: Ernie | Dec 5, 2013 12:17:25 PM

  23. This is a VERY slippery slope. I agree with Neil, in that would it be proper for a gay baker be prohibited from refusing to bake a cake for Pat Robertson's birthday. This knife cuts both ways. Forcing anyone to do something that they disagree with on the basis of their faith is a violation of their rights to worship as they please. Don't give me that nonsense of public accommodation, it doesn't fly. This is just another publicity hungry couple and their ambulance chasing lawyer trying to make a buck. As a gay man I find it ridiculous, there are more important battles to be fought. If my partner of more than 35 years and I decide to get married we'll pick a gay baker, and honey child if you've ever been in the restaurant business as we were, they are easy to find. You can't swing a cat without hitting one. So Dave and Charlie, move on, get over yourselves, we can't impose our beliefs on all people. It will never happen. There will always be haters and people different from us. Life is too short, we have to pick the right battles.
    Now all you radical gay rights boys and girls can attack me, I'm 65 and a Stonewall era fairy I can take it. Just my opinion.

    Posted by: I wont grow up | Dec 5, 2013 12:32:20 PM

  24. @Neil - one can argue that it is a matter of conscience but it is not a matter of religious freedom. The couple did not ask him to go against his beliefs and engage in gay sex. They asked him to bake a cake which as far as I know is not prohibited from the bible. So no impeding on religious freedom there.

    However it did go against his conscience. He is a bigot and against gay people (just using the bible to hide behind his bigotry). And if gays are a legally protected class in that state then despite his conscience, he acted illegally.

    Posted by: Chris | Dec 5, 2013 12:38:24 PM

  25. I'd care about this story more if it weren't obvious that both sides are being stubborn and seeking publicity, however negatively it might reflect on them.

    If the couple simply wanted a cake, they could have gotten one from a place that respected them. If the bakery owner felt so strongly about not baking them a cake, he could have apologized and recommended other bakeries. But both sides dug in their heels, it went to the media, and now their lives have been overtaken by it.

    It's just a cake. If I don't like someone or they don't like me, we avoid each other. I wouldn't want a zealot who hates me baking my wedding cake, and I'd publicize the owner's views online and in other forums. But taking it to court seems frivolous.

    Posted by: Paul R | Dec 5, 2013 12:40:22 PM

  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment


« «Thousands Protest NYPD's 'Stop and Kiss' Program: VIDEO« «