WND EXCLUSIVE
CHRISTIAN BAKER TAKES 'COMPULSION OF SPEECH' CASE TO SUPREMES
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner appeals Colorado demand he promote 'gay marriage'
Jack Phillips, the baker whose Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado was targeted by homosexual activists over his religious beliefs, an attack then joined by the state of Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, is appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court to veto the state’s “outright compulsion of speech.”
At issue is his decision not to use his artistic talents to promote “gay marriage” at the request of two homosexuals, and the state’s subsequent decision that he has no right to control the speech in which he engages.
The petition to the high court was filed on his behalf by officials with the Alliance Defending Freedom.
“The First Amendment prohibits the government from telling private citizens ‘what they must say,'” according to the brief. “It is undisputed that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission … does not apply [the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act] to ban (1) an African-American cake artist from refusing to create a cake promoting white-supremacism for the Aryan Nation, (2) an Islamic cake artist from refusing to create a cake denigrating the Quran for the Westboro Baptist Church, and (3) three secular cake artists from refusing to create cakes opposing same-sex marriage for a Christian patron.
“Neither should CADA ban Jack Phillips’ polite declining to create a cake celebrating same-sex marriage on the religious grounds when he is happy to create other items for gay and lesbian clients.”
The Colorado state Supreme Court earlier, in a decision by a judge who boasts on a state website of being a homosexual-rights advocate through the Denver mayor’s “GLBT Commission” and three others, refused to intervene in the case.
The Colorado court said that Chief Justice Nancy Rice and Justice Nathan Coats would have reviewed the case because of the important questions it raises. But four other justices, including Monica Marquiz, who boasts of winning the Colorado GLBT Bar Association’s 2009 Outstanding GLBT Attorney Award, joined with a growing social movement that insists homosexual rights trump the religious rights protected by the Constitution.
The other three justices joining the campaign were Brian Boatright, William Hood III, and Richard Gabriel..
All four refused to respond to WND requests for comment.
They left standing a lower court opinion forcing Phillips and his staff to create cakes for same-sex celebrations in violation of their religion faith. The lower court ruling also ordered a re-education program for Phillips and his staff.
“No one – not Jack or anyone else – should be forced by the government to further a message that they cannot in good conscience promote,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jeremy Tedesco. “And that’s what this case is about.
“Jack, who has happily served people of all backgrounds for years, simply exercised the long-cherished American freedom to decline to use his artistic talents to promote a message and event with which he fundamentally disagrees. We are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to ensure that government understands that its duty is to protect the people’s freedom to follow their beliefs personally and professionally, not force them to violate those beliefs as the price of earning a living.”
The ADF report noted according to a 2015 poll, 65 percent of Americans oppose penalizing wedding vendors who choose not to provide services for same-sex ceremonies on religious grounds.
Back in July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Phillips for a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith, ADF reported.
They filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which eventually ruled against Phillips, even though the same-sex duo was easily able to obtain their desired rainbow-themed cake for free from another nearby cake artist.
The state’s ultimate order to Phillips “violates one of the Free Speech Clause’s essential rules: the government cannot compel a private citizen ‘to utter what is not in his mind,'” the brief charges.
“Given the exceptions to CADA that state authorities have recognized for other cake artists, including three secular cake artists who refused to create custom cakes criticizing same-sex marriage on religious grounds, the commission’s application of CADA additionally targets Phillips’ religious beliefs about marriage for punishment in violatin of the Free Exercise Clause,” the petition, nearly 400 pages long, says.
“This court’s review is needed to alleviate the stark choice Colorado offers to those who, like Phillips, earn a living through artistic means: Either use your talents to create expression that conflicts with your religious beliefs about marriage, or suffer punishment….”
Colorado’s governmental conclusion not only “turns the compelled speech doctrine on its head,” it also conflicts with the Supreme Court’s free speech precedent and creates a conflict with other appeals court rulings.
The petition explains that Colorado treats Christians with less respect than those with other beliefs.
“By deeming Phillips’ religious reasons for declining to create a custom cake to be of less importance than those of other cake artists, the commission ‘singled out’ Phillips’ religious practice for ‘discriminatory treatment,'” the brief states.
In fact, the state of Colorado actually moved beyond judicial activism to expressing “hostility” to Christians, it alleges.
“Such hostility was apparent during the proceedings in Phillips’ case. One commission member summarized the commission’s logic during the course of an administrative hearing, as follows:
I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. 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.
That was from commission member Diann Rice.
Hear a recording of Rice’s statement:State adjudicators then agreed with the commission’s intent to penalize Phillips, even though an administrative law judge’s findings, which have been undisputed throughout the case, documented Phillips’ consistent business policy based on his religious beliefs.
The judge, at the time, found:
- “Phillips has been a Christian for approximately 35 years, and believes in Jesus Christ as his Lord and savior. As a Christian, Phillips’ main goal in life is to be obedient to Jesus and His teachings in all aspects of his life.”
- “Based on the teachings of the Bible, Phillips ‘believes … that God’s intention for marriage is the union of one man and one woman.'”
- “Phillips ‘believes that the Bible commands him to avoid doing anything that would displease God, and not to encourage sin in any way.'”
- “Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art and creative expression, and that he can honor God through his artistic talents.”
- “Phillips ‘believes that if he uses his artistic talents to participate in same-sex weddings by creating a wedding cake, he will be displeasing God and acting contrary to the teachings of the Bible.'”
- “Phillips ‘advised’ the mother of one of the persons in the same-sex couple ‘that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages.'”
“This is not about the people who asked for a cake, it’s about the message the cake communicates,” added ADF-allied attorney Nicolle Martin of Lakewood, who is serving as co-counsel in the case. “No artist should be punished for declining to promote ideas or participate in events when they disagree with the message communicated.”
See a video about the case:
When Colorado’s Supreme Court failed to uphold Phillips’ speech rights, Rice and Coats noted the issues that need to be reviewed include whether the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) “requires Phillips to create artistic expression that contravenes his religious beliefs about marriage,” whether “applying CADA to force Phillips to create artistic expression that contravenes his religious beliefs about marriage violates his free speech rights under the United States and Colorado Constitutions” and whether “applying CADA to force Phillips to create artistic expression that violates his religious beliefs about marriage infringes his free exercise rights under the United States and Colorado Constitutions.”
The ADF has explained the case: “Phillips … honors God through his creative work by declining to use his artistic talents to design and create cakes that violate his religious beliefs. This includes cakes with offensive written messages and cakes celebrating events or ideas that violate his beliefs, including cakes celebrating Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.
“He also will not create cakes with hateful, vulgar, or profane messages, or sell any products containing alcohol. … Consistent with this longtime practice, Phillips also will not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to biblical teaching.”
Read more at http://www.wnd.com/2016/07/christian-baker-takes-compulsion-of-speech-case-to-supremes/#A4Fko2KvA7kor5b1.99
No comments:
Post a Comment