Get PJ Media on your Apple

The PJ Tatler

by
Rick Moran

Bio

May 30, 2014 - 3:48 pm

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that Jack Phillips, owner of a cake shop in a suburb of Denver, must bake cakes for gay couples — even though gay marriage is illegal in the state.

Associated Press:

Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission on Friday ordered a baker to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples, finding his religious objections to the practice did not trump the state’s anti-discrimination statutes.

The unanimous ruling from the seven-member commission upheld an administrative law judge’s finding in December that Jack Phillips violated civil rights law when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012. The couple sued.

“I can believe anything I want, but if I’m going to do business here, I’d ought to not discriminate against people,” Commissioner Raju Jaram said.

Phillips, a devout Christian who owns the Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood, said the decision violates his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. “I will stand by my convictions until somebody shuts me down,” he told reporters after the ruling.

He added his bakery has been so overwhelmed by supporters eager to buy cookies and brownies that he does not currently make wedding cakes.

The couple who sued Phillips, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, were pleased that the commission roundly rejected Phillips’ arguments. “We’re just thrilled by that,” Mullins said.

Gay marriage remains illegal in Colorado. Mullins and Craig were married in Massachusetts and wanted a wedding cake for a reception to celebrate their union back home in Colorado.

State law prohibits businesses from refusing to serve customers based on their sexual orientation.

The panel issued its ruling verbally. It ordered Phillips to stop discriminating against gay people and to report quarterly for two years on staff anti-discrimination training and any customers he refuses to serve.

The “Civil Rights Commission” is a kangaroo court. Their mandate is to find people brought before it guilty of discrimination. That is their raison d’être, and the members of the commission are chosen to prove discrimination is present.

Here is part of their mission statement:

The Commissioners are citizens of Colorado who are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate to serve four-year, voluntary terms. They are selected from across the state to represent both political parties. Two represent business (one of whom represents small business), two represent government, and three represent the community at-large. At least four of the members are members of groups of people who have been or who might be discriminated against because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, national origin, ancestry, sexual orientation, marital status, religion or age. Matters concerning current investigations or appeals before the Commission are confidential and can only be discussed with the parties in the case or the parties’ representatives.

There are 3 Democrats, one Republican, and 3 “un,” meaning unaffiliated on the commission. The fact that at least half the commission is part of the victimhood culture should tell you all you need to know about the fairness of the proceedings.

To sum up: Mr. Phillips was hauled before this commission for not serving a wedding cake to a gay couple even though gay marriage is illegal in Colorado. In other words, it is illegal in Colorado to refuse to take part in the extension of an illegal act. Mr. Phillips is being punished and forced to violate his religious tenets despite the fact that one of the Commission’s mandates is to protect people from being discriminated against because of their religion.

Go figure.

Mark Steyn’s run in with this sort of lunacy in Canada brought out the best in his writing:

If you schmooze enough Third World thug states, it’s not surprising your postmodern cultural relativism starts to drift past the point of no return. As Commissar Lynch primly notes in her report, America’s First Amendment absolutism on free speech is out of step with the “growing global consensus”—that would be the “growing global consensus” represented by the CHRC and its “distinguished guests.” Take Sweden and Cameroon, split the difference, and that should be enough human rights for anyone.

In an op-ed for the Globe and Mail, Jennifer Lynch justified her report on the grounds that it would assist a “balanced debate.” That same day, CTV booked her and Ezra Levant, author of Shakedown, the bestselling book about Canada’s “human rights” regime, on to Power Play, to have that, er, “debate” she’s always talking about. When Queen Jennifer heard Ezra was to be on the show, she refused to debate him, and demanded he be bounced from the airwaves. As Kathy Shaidle put it: “Canada’s Official Censor Tries To Censor TV Debate About Censorship.”

Okay, if she won’t debate Ezra, I’d be happy to do it. All very “balanced”: Maclean’s can sponsor it, Steve Paikin or some such public-TV cove can anchor it. Name the date, I’ll be there. But, in the absence of any willingness to debate, reasonable people pondering Canada’s strangely ambitious Official Censor might object not just philosophically but on Professor Moon-like utilitarian grounds: if you’re not smart enough to debate Ezra Levant, you’re not smart enough to police the opinions of 30 million people.

In the world of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, freedom is a zero sum game; in order to give freedom to some you must take away freedom from others.

It’s nonsense, of course — but Mr. Phillips isn’t laughing.

Rick Moran is PJ Media's Chicago editor and Blog editor at The American Thinker. He is also host of the"RINO Hour of Power" on Blog Talk Radio. His own blog is Right Wing Nut House.
Top Rated Comments   
We'll get the next Flukeoid whiner declaring that "access to wedding cakes" is a human right - and therefore must be paid for by the State. Then we'll be saddled with the Affordable Wedding Cake Act, also known as Obamacake.

"If you like your baker, you can keep your baker. Period."
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
First they came for the Cake Shop Owners, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Cake Shop Owner.

Then they came for the ...
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
I see this as the beginning of the end....

Of wedding cakes.

More and more bakers, especially those who don't believe in gay marriage, will begin refusing to make wedding cakes at all just to avoid this issue. With fewer bakers making cakes, there will be more demand and prices will go up. Eventually, with prices too high, people will stop buying them.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (64)
All Comments   (64)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
To facilitate proper integration, Christians should start booking gay venues to hold bible study and prayer meetings.

11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let me see if I've got this right. The commission's ruling was that a public business (which has to abide by state laws and statutes) discriminated against a class of customers.

So, you support the theory that people should be allowed to choose which laws to follow and which ones they shouldn't? Rather than working to getting a law repealed, they should just ignore it? That's an interesting way to run a society.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
it needs to be repeated that this guy did not refuse to serve gay customers, he refused to create a wedding cake celebrating a same sex marriage.

The Baker has a right to refuse certain decorations they may have found offensive. Imagine a vegan being asked to decorate a cake celebrating a deer hunt or a feminist refusing to make a woman-insulting bachelor party cake.

11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
How about the class of people known as anti-Semites. Should a Jewish baker be required to bake a cake for a Nazi Party fundraiser?

How about the class of people known as bigots. Should a black baker be required to bake a cake for a KKK rally?
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Re: the first line of your 2nd para;
Barack H. Obama does it on a depressingly regular basis.
So does A G Holder. As-do more and more Federal agencies too numerous to list here.
So that progression just invites more of the same, and this is what we're seeing.
[Add '& Brainless' to your self-chosen title.]
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"you support the theory that people should be allowed to choose which laws to follow and which ones they shouldn't"

No, not at all. The whole nation is founded on the notion that an unconstitutional law or court ruling is null and void from the get go, and in compelling political speech, forcing the baker to bake this cake is explicitly unconstitutional.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Thieves are a "class" of citizen too. Your type of reasoning has been around since Plato and before. It's called sophistry. Another name for it is rhetoric.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Resistance to Civil Government (Civil Disobedience) is an essay by American transcendentalist Henry David Thoreau that was first published in 1849. In it, Thoreau argues that individuals should not permit governments to overrule or atrophy their consciences, and that they have a duty to avoid allowing such acquiescence to enable the government to make them the agents of injustice. Thoreau was motivated in part by his disgust with slavery and the Mexican–American War. Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Disobedience_(Thoreau)
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
IMO the issue here is the government legislating that the sensibilities of certain people are more important than the actual rights of others. In this instance, the baker's right to run his business the way he chooses has been trumped by the gay couple's sense that they are entitled to force people to provide services for them. This is similar to forcing private business owners to ban smoking within their private business. Or forcing bed and breakfasts to provide room and board to lesbian couples, etc.
The "equal treatment" laws were and are meant for the government, and the government only. Private citizens and businesses should be allowed to live their lives and run their operations as they want, and the only consequences coming from social and/or market forces. A restaurant allows smoking within their establishment? You are FREE to choose another place to eat that doesn't, and no one's rights (or sensibilities, for that matter) are infringed upon, except for those who wish to tell everyone else how to live. Same in this instance. The gay couple was FREE to choose another bakery to bake their cake. Sadly, they feel their sensibilities are more important than the baker's rights, and aided by unconstitutional laws, are able to force another person to do something they don't want to do. And the ironic part is, a major contention of the gay movement was about having to pretend that they were something they weren't. They have become what they beheld, and it didn't take them long to do it.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Leave out the salt. Salt is bad for you anyway.
The cake will be tasteless.
State it as policy for all custom cakes--fine print--salt optional.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Why not make one lousy - inedible - cake and charge a few thousand dollars for it?
We all make mistakes, etc., etc..
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"The Cleansing of the Shire" probably involving firearms.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is not even the hint of the idea of freedom in this country anymore, just an ever-expanding list of things not to do and now a list of things you have to do or have your livelihood destroyed. Next you will have to do them with a smile on your face.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
And a song in your heart.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
raju Jaram. Lived in CO for 35 years. Never meet anyone named Raju. Or any of the Jarams.
Wih a name like that they certainly represent mainstream CO thinking for sure.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Let's suppose this cake baker had refused an interracial heterosexual couple a cake because he believed blacks to be "mud people". Would we be having this debate? Of course not. Some religious beliefs are acceptable, some are not.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Interracial marriage is legal in Colorado. Homosexual marriage isn't.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Trebuchet, if you're being serious, can you come up with a guiding principle for such intrusions into people's commercial decision-making?

P.S. "We like these people and don't like those other people" is not a principle.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Trebuchet's being quite serious. The special protections and provisions granted a business by a society must be matched by that business being open to that society.
You are free to make cakes of any kind for any people you want, and avoid people you don't- just don't call it a business and expect to deduct your expenses from your taxes, because then it's not just you, it's everyone.
"We don't want your kind here" is un-American.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Does a Jewish baker have to bake a cake for a Nazi Party fundraiser?

Does a black baker have to bake a cake for a KKK rally?
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
As well, just as homosexuals have always had the same right to get married as anyone else, and no one has ever tried to stop them. They have always had the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Human rights are about the rights of individuals, not groups - not even groups of two. When two people are refused marriage on the basis that the *couple* (not the individual) does not fit the definition of marriage, that is not a discrimination against an individual. Nobody has been refused the right, as an individual, to be married. Only a couple has been barred (a father can't marry his daughter either).

Furthermore, a baker refusing to bake a cake fit for a homosexual marriage is not the same thing as a baker refusing to serve a homosexual (you have to be able to think a bit beyond emotional rhetoric to be able to understand this). Has the baker tried to bar homosexuals from his store? He would refuse to bake a cake representing homosexual marriage to a heterosexual too.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's a different issue. racial marriages are not harmful. OTOH, homosexuality kills people. More Americans were killed by AIDS than were killed in the WWII, for example, so homosexual behaviour should not be encouraged in any way. The half baked libertarian movement that claims that homosexual sex is OK anyway because the victims are just the people who choose do engage in it are wrong as usual. The victims include mothers, fathers, children, friends, and family.

As well, as a person involved in an interracial marriazge, I am deeply offended that you compare my marriage to the attack on marriage that is the perversion of homosexual marriage.

You are working for sheer evil.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
The special protections and provisions granted a business by a society..

What special protections and provisions? "Society" is but a term of convenience with no concrete meaning.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Being homosexual, or having a "gay marriage," is not like being black or being against intermarriage between different races. Homosexuality is a form of mental illness, form of abnormal behaviour, whereas being of different races is not.
"Gay marriage," is, in any case, ridiculous and dishonest. Any adults can live together, with or without sexual relations (except for incest), make any financial arrangements they want. All animals mate members of the opposite sex. The purpose of marriage is reproduction, and, obviously, homosexuals do not reproduce with each other. Society has an interest in marriage because of children, but there is no such interest in homosexuals living together. No, homosexual couples should not be allowed to adopt children.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
1. You have no business defining what the purpose of someone's marriage is.
2. You are insulting marriages between senior citizens, infertile people, or others who for some reason cannot have children.
3. You can't even base this absurdity in religion- in the bible, Abraham is faithful to Sarah even though she his "barren", and apparently, god approves.

There are two ways to look at the concept of law, freedom, and society. One way is to say, "unless I can find a really good reason to permit this, it must be forbidden." The other is to say "unless I can find a really good reason to forbid this, it must be permitted." There is NO logical reason not to permit gay marriages, and therefore, to be true to the concept of freedom, it must be permitted.

If you really want to bring some good to the world, why not try forbidding marriages if one partner is unemployed? Most marriages fail over financial disputes. And alcoholism, drug abuse... forbid marriages between people with those problems. Repeat felons. That would actually help marriages. But gays? Nope.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
> You have no business defining what the purpose of someone's marriage is.

But you do?

> You are insulting marriages between senior citizens, infertile people, or others who for some reason cannot have children.

You don't have to have children yourself to understand that the institution of marriage exists for them.

> You can't even base this absurdity in religion- in the bible, Abraham is faithful to Sarah even though she his "barren", and apparently, god approves.

In case you didn't notice, Sarah had a boy.

> There are two ways to look at the concept of law, freedom, and society.

From what you've been saying, the freedom you're talking about is freedom to approve of that which you approve of.

Freedom to disapprove of it? Not so much.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Actually, if we as a society are going to encourage marriage with special legal and tax statuses, we have every business in defining the purpose of marriage. If you just want marriage to be a semi-public declaration of love and commitment then I have news for you. Gay couples can get married in EVERY SINGLE STATE. There is no law anywhere in the US that prohibits couples, gay or straight, from cohabitating and referring to each other as husband or wife.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
But there IS a difference in how they get treated by governments. Try claiming a married exemption from the IRS if you are in a homosexual marriage in a state that doesn't recognize it. Try bequeathing your property to your gay spouse if you die in a state that doesn't acknowledge gay marriage. That, as I understand it, is the kind of thing the gays are fighting for.

Otherwise, the whole thing would be pretty much a non-issue. The gays would say they were "married" and we straight people would roll out eyes but let them say it and that would be the end of it. The meaning of the word "married" would be gutted but that's about it. But the gays are after much more than that: they want their idea of marriage to be condoned, encouraged and celebrated and they want it to be treated exactly the same as heterosexual couples. Many of us are not up for that, which is why this is an ongoing struggle.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
You can bequeath your property to whomever you choose, spouses merely enjoy the presumption of inheritance when there is no will. The tax benefits are entirely my point. We as a society have chosen to encourage certain couples. It is therefore entirely in society's interest to define the nature of the couples encouraged. You don't get to simultaneously claim privacy and a tax break.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"Homosexuality is a form of mental illness, form of abnormal behaviour"

There is no evidence of that. What evidence exists, suggests the tendency is rooted solely in genetics, and is expressed as society permits is expression, generally in history by failing to universally and effectually punish it's expression. There is no evidence in history, that any society has been advantaged by working harder to punish that expression. It's a waste of effort.

"make any financial arrangements they want"

No they effectively could not, because the courts prior to civil union laws would not recognize such a contract, or the designation of same sex partners when the courts were aware of such, as the benificiaries of an estate.

"All animals mate members of the opposite sex"

No. Evidence of non-dominance enforcing homosexual behavior is in evidence among every social mammalian species wherein it has been looked for, where adults spend any appreciable resources rearing young.

" The purpose of ... to adopt children."

Today state endorsed marriage has no legal purpose. It's effectual purpose is the more complete employment of unproductive people such as superfluous lawyers and judges.

Church endorsed marriage is a matter for a church to decide, and there is a just liberty interest served by prohibiting the state from forcing people to act as if a couple are married, when their conscience for any reason dictates otherwise.

Of course a homosexual couple should be permitted to adopt, they are not demonstrably less likely to raise acceptable citizens than are any other group of usually liberal people. Our political goals should be aimed at out arguing and out voting them, not at some vague program not acknowledged to be Eugenics by it's proponents--and useless at that, since genes make you gay.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is no evidence of that when your moral relativist and not terribly bright - understanding something like complement. You can justify about anything when there's no absolutes.

11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
I respect nothing but moral absolutes. Given that I suspect you pretend you believe the Bible, I wonder if you keep kosher, or have a rail around your roof?

Do you suffer witches to live? Have meat and milk together in your fridge?

Do you so much as keep the Noahide Laws?

I don't. Christ has nothing to do with any of them.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Not a student of the Bible, are you? You're clueless. First, Christ defined marriage for us - one man, one woman. There is no dispute if you are to use the Bible as reference. Second, Christ made it abundantly clear that practicing homosexuals will have no part of heaven. Don't you want these souls in heaven? Why do you enable them?

Finally, and equally important demonstrating how shallow and uninformed you really are, are you not aware that Christians are not under the Priesthood of Levites, but the Priesthood of Melchizedek?

You need to take your theological ignorance up with the Jews on the board. They'll hammer you too...
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Find the quote, liar.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Before I show you to be a theological dunce, why don't we wager a bet since you called me a liar.

And in one swoop I'll demonstrate not only how clueless you are, but how vacuous too. You obviously know nothing of the Bible. But then, you're obviously an amoral Leftist too.

Say we wager a $100.00 for my efforts and I'll let Roger Simon keep $50.00 for using his board? You tough enough to do that, chief?
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
If you think we can find common ground to fight on, and if you can get Mr. Simon to referee, sure. But I think you are one of the fools who think the Bible is the inerrant word of God, where I know it has been written and rewritten by men, and they altered it as required to suit the politics of the day.

" But then, you're obviously an amoral Leftist too."

Know your opponent first, dolt.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
And I can see a half a dozen ways you've just lied.

I did not and have not said marriage is not one man and one woman--but have said what government is fit to enforce, which a contract people can make, and I have specifically said it has no just power to compel anyone to say what they think is not marriage is, and you have implied otherwise.

" Second, Christ made it abundantly clear that practicing homosexuals will have no part of heaven. Don't you want these souls in heaven? Why do you enable them? "

A) Well, no, he didn't. B) What's that even got to do with Caesar's business? C) It's not my place to disable them, it's not your's either.

"Finally, and equally important demonstrating how shallow and uninformed you really are, are you not aware that Christians are not under the Priesthood of Levites, but the Priesthood of Melchizedek?"

Well no, neither has anything to do with it, because that's all stone and bronze age nonsense that has nothing to do anything Christ taught. Just 500 or so years before the Noahide laws were written, God still had a Goddess for a wife, and what became the Hebraic people's had not yet adopted monotheism.

The Jews will say the Samaritan's aren't Jewish, when what is real is that the Samaritans are Jews unaffected by conquest by the empires to the east.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
[Well no, neither has anything to do with it, because that's all stone and bronze age nonsense that has nothing to do anything Christ taught.]

LOL. You don't even have an inkling what I'm talking about, do you? When do you think the book of Hebrews was written, imbecile? You're about 1,600 years off, "scholar."

And by the way, let me give you a brief summation of exactly what Christ said about marriage...being you still believe marriage has nothing to do with what Christ taught. Go back to your nihilist book when I'm done.

And Jesus answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? So then, they are no longer two but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
No, still existing texts and archeological remains show Asherah was the wife of Yahweh as recently as 700 BC.

And before any bet is agreed on, you need to repair your honesty. Did I ever say a marriage was not between a man and a wife?

Where is a contemporaneous record of Jesus ever saying marriage was between a man and a wife--the Books of the Apostles were written later, even centuries later, and don't count.

"you still believe marriage has nothing to do with what Christ taught"

I believe what the state can say a civil union is has nothing to do with what Christ taught, get it right, quit lying.

BTW, I mentioned we'd have to agree to common ground for any bet, that will have to use every bit of the archeological record either one of us can locate, not just the Bible.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
It's not gays he is against it's the ceremony. Like forcing a photographer to take pictures at an orgy.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
As a matter of fact, the sole reason Goldwater opposed the final civil rights bill is that it commanded such violations of civil rights a forcing the very few people who actually thought "Whites Only" was a good idea, to not practice their beliefs. It is not permitted in the Constitution for the government to command such behavior from people. The government is also prohibited from endorsing behavior.

That's a matter of what the Constitution actually authorizes, as opposed to what the establishment pretends that it means.

And Trebuchet, some religious beliefs are acceptable, and some are not. The Mayan death cults and the Thuggee, for example, should be extinguished wherever they crop up.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
"opposed the final civil rights bill"

That should read as "opposed the final civil rights bill in part".

As with most Republicans, he firmly supported the end of Jim Crow, and he supported strongly the first civil rights bills which only did the constitutional work of implement the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
Take Sweden and Cameroon, split the difference, and that should be enough human rights for anyone.

Steyn's gay cat - both dead and alive.
11 weeks ago
11 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All