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.

Comments are closed.

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."
29 weeks ago
29 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 ...
29 weeks ago
29 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.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (63)
All Comments   (63)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
To facilitate proper integration, Christians should start booking gay venues to hold bible study and prayer meetings.

29 weeks ago
29 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.
29 weeks ago
29 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.

28 weeks ago
28 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?
28 weeks ago
28 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.]
28 weeks ago
28 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.
29 weeks ago
29 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.
29 weeks ago
29 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)
29 weeks ago
29 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.
29 weeks ago
29 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.
29 weeks ago
29 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..
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
"The Cleansing of the Shire" probably involving firearms.
29 weeks ago
29 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.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
And a song in your heart.
29 weeks ago
29 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.
29 weeks ago
29 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.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
I wonder what the reaction would be if a chapter of the KKK attempted to hire a cleaning service owned by black people to tidy up after their weekly meetings and the service refused to do business with them? For some strange reason I tend to doubt that the "Civil Rights Commission” would have come down on the cleaning service the same way.

Maybe some push back along such lines would be in order.
29 weeks ago
29 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All