Colorado | Denver | Discrimination | News

BigGayDeal.com

Anti-gay Colorado Baker Appeals Court Ruling Ordering Him to Serve Gays

Jack Phillips

Jack Phillips, with the help of conservative Christian legal defense organization, has appealed a recent court ruling against him for his refusal to serve a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. The judge had ruled that the Lakewood bakery owner “unlawfully discriminated against a gay couple by refusing to sell them a wedding cake” back in July. The AP reports:

Alliance Defending Freedom filed an appeal Monday on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop. A judge last month ordered the shop to stop discriminating against gay couples.

[…]

ADF attorney Kristen Waggoner says “forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression.”

Phillips has pledged to close his cake shop if forced to bake a gay wedding cake. 

Feed This post's comment feed

Comments

  1. Then close it bigot. Who would want a wedding cake baked by some untalented bigot anyway?

    Posted by: Jaysonn | Jan 8, 2014 2:17:23 PM


  2. Why does he need a court? Is he admitting prayer is useless?

    Posted by: Nick | Jan 8, 2014 2:21:06 PM


  3. I don't know about you, but I'd sure rather deal with legal proceedings and court fees than bake a frakking cake.

    Posted by: Dave | Jan 8, 2014 2:21:14 PM


  4. He's iced himself into a corner. He doesn't want to close his shop... but he'll be called on it.
    Jack? God doesn't like liars.

    Posted by: JimmyD | Jan 8, 2014 2:46:33 PM


  5. where in the bible does it say thou shalt not bake a freakin' cake for gays?

    Posted by: Little Kiwi | Jan 8, 2014 2:53:25 PM


  6. "...To Serve Gays". It's a cookbook! It's a cookbook!

    Posted by: bcarter3 | Jan 8, 2014 2:53:27 PM


  7. Oh to be so highly principled as to not care about the cost of legal proceedings ... when all he reallty needs to do is sell cakes to the gays out of a pass-thru round the back of the store. It worked well enough for their negro customers back in the day. Before the darn courts got involved.

    Posted by: Leroy Laflamme | Jan 8, 2014 2:55:13 PM


  8. I didn't know wedding cakes could be gay.

    Posted by: JerzeeMike | Jan 8, 2014 2:55:29 PM


  9. I don't understand this. Once this guy's intentions are known will any gays (or LGBT allies) actually be going to his store to get a cake? Furthermore, if you do patronize his store for a custom cake, aren't you afraid he's going to take a piss in the cake batter, or something else nefarious?

    Posted by: Adam | Jan 8, 2014 2:56:12 PM


  10. Other than that he's a sore loser, on what legal grounds is he appealing? You can't just walk into appeals court and say that I don't like the ruling I got and I want another one. You've got to prove that the lower court made a reversible error or that the law it applied is unconstitutional. Neither is the case. So what's the basis of the appeal?

    Posted by: Jim | Jan 8, 2014 2:56:20 PM


  11. well, he'd have a case if the headline said:
    "anti-gay colorado baker appeals court ruling ordering him to service gays."

    Posted by: woody | Jan 8, 2014 3:00:12 PM


  12. Can you imagine the extreme public outrage if he was fighting to discriminate against doing cakes for an interracial wedding, or a Jewish wedding?

    Posted by: Gregory In Seattle | Jan 8, 2014 3:02:34 PM


  13. The guy is going to lose his appeal so he is postponing the inevitable.

    Posted by: DC Insider | Jan 8, 2014 3:12:54 PM


  14. SCOTUS just proved that you don't need a reversible error or unconstitutionality to undo lower court decisions that expand the recognition of rights for gay people. See: Utah. Everything has changed now, and we also have retroactive laws now too.

    Posted by: Nick | Jan 8, 2014 3:14:13 PM


  15. quote: "forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression."

    ... how the hell is baking a cake for someone "Promoting" them?

    Use a freaking dictionary.

    Posted by: Jexer | Jan 8, 2014 3:30:30 PM


  16. ADAM, what about this is escaping your notice? This is NOT about him baking cakes for the homos; it's about him obeying the law. I would never give this man a dime for his services, but I would still call the cops on him - and make an example of him - so that no one else buys from him and, especially, that no one else in his state thinks they can get away with this.

    Posted by: Zlick | Jan 8, 2014 3:36:25 PM


  17. @Adam: Whether any gay people will frequent this guy's shop knowing that he's a bigot is beside the point. (Mostly likely they won't, now that they know.) He's the one appealing the ruling. He's the one who wants a special pass to discriminate. He's the one who's dragging this case out with no rational grounds to do so. Alliance "Defending Freedom," on the other hand, has every reason to drag it out for their own propaganda purposes.

    @Nick: Not sure what you're talking about. SCOTUS hasn't undone a lower court decision in Utah. They've issued a stay during the appeals process, which was disappointing but it's quite different from overturning a ruling. Everything hasn't changed.

    Posted by: Ernie | Jan 8, 2014 3:46:12 PM


  18. Good luck when he tries to deposit his beliefs in his bank account.

    Posted by: Jack M | Jan 8, 2014 3:49:35 PM


  19. For Jewish couples there's a special issue. If this person prevails on appeal (and perhaps even if he doesn't), the recognized authorities could refuse to certify (as kosher) baker or caterer that does same gender weddings. This could include not just those weddings but the caterer's or baker's entire business. Even without an explicit threat, they might be rightfully wary.

    While I don't observe the dietary laws (and would not consider marrying anybody that did), I would want to be able to serve kosher food if my "religious" relatives should accept the invitation.

    Posted by: Shlomo | Jan 8, 2014 4:02:52 PM


  20. @shlomo- That sounds utterly absurd. If a religious group refuses to condone a business because the business caters to people they don't approve of... that's their legal right, I suppose... but it's a disgustingly political and corrupt thing to do none the less.

    Posted by: Jexer | Jan 8, 2014 4:18:11 PM


  21. I'm assuming this falls under the civil code and he was made to "redress" the issue. It's hard to appeal civil cases. If he could show that his wedding cakes are exclusively for one religion and not others he might win--otherwise he probably won't.

    Posted by: anon | Jan 8, 2014 4:19:45 PM


  22. and 9 times out of 10 they look like bigger mo's than me.

    or maybe it's just something about haters and they hairstyles they choose???

    Posted by: S in SF | Jan 8, 2014 5:01:37 PM


  23. He's not concerned about the cost of legal proceedings, as that christian group is funding the appeal--no doubt to crow about any victory they (most unlikely will) get.

    And, it gives the guy another 15 minutes.....

    Posted by: kdknyc | Jan 8, 2014 5:02:22 PM


  24. DON'T FALL FOR THIS "CHRISTIAN" CRAP

    NO ONE CAN FORCE ANYONE TO BAKE A CAKE
    All he faces is a fine.
    This is the latest "anti-Gay trick", to pretend they would have to do something against their beliefs.

    Posted by: Bob | Jan 8, 2014 5:10:10 PM


  25. “forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression.”

    Uhm, no.

    Baking a cake is not "promoting ideas". It's baking a friggin' cake.

    He can go out and verbally promote all the bigoted ideas he wants all day long once the cake is done.

    So, shut yur cake hole and bake already.

    Otherwise, close the silly shop down.


    Posted by: johnny | Jan 8, 2014 5:39:56 PM


  26. 1 2 »

Post a comment







Trending


« «Utah Says It Won't Recognize Validity of Gay Marriages Performed Before SCOTUS Stay« «