Baker Denying Gay Couple a Wedding Cake Loses Appeal     - Gay City News | Gay City News
Quantcast

Baker Denying Gay Couple a Wedding Cake Loses Appeal    

A wedding cake Jack C. Phillips advertises on his website. | MASTERPIECECAKES.COM

A wedding cake Jack C. Phillips advertises on his website. | MASTERPIECECAKES.COM

BY ARTHUR S. LEONARD | A unanimous three-judge panel of the Colorado Court of Appeals has affirmed that state’s Civil Rights Commission ruling against Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., and its proprietor, Jack C. Phillips, for its refusal to provide services to a gay couple celebrating their wedding.

The August 13 ruling continues an unbroken string of court decisions rejecting small business claims that they can decline goods and services to same-sex couples based on their First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

According to the court’s opinion by Judge Daniel M. Taubman, in 2012 Charlie Craig and David Mullins married in Massachusetts and then returned home to Colorado to hold a wedding celebration. When they asked Masterpiece Cakeshop to create a wedding cake for them, Phillips declined, saying he does not provide that service for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs.

Three-judge Colorado panel rejects First Amendment religious freedom, artistic expression claims

Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, invoking the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which bans discrimination because of sexual orientation by public accommodations. After an administrative law judge ruled in favor of the couple, rejecting Phillips’ religious exemption defense, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission affirmed that decision, issuing a “cease and desist order” requiring the company to take remedial measures, including staff training, and to file quarterly reports for two years documenting all cases in which service was denied.

Taubman’s decision makes no mention of any fine or damages in the Commission’s ruling.

Phillips appealed to the courts, claiming he did not discriminate because of Craig and Mullins’ sexual orientation, but rather because he disapproved of same-sex marriages on religious grounds. He noted his willingness to sell the two men other baked goods and, somewhat facetiously, asserted he would also refuse to design a cake for two heterosexual men who wanted to celebrate their wedding.

The appellate panel rejected this rationalization. Phillips was trying to argue he was not acting based on the couple’s status as gay men but rather their conduct in holding a wedding celebration. Taubman observed, “The United States Supreme Court has recognized that such distinctions are generally inappropriate.” Justice Anthony Kennedy’s 2003 opinion in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down sodomy laws nationwide, concluded that a law criminalizing homosexual conduct is “in and of itself an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.” And, Taubman noted, Justice Sandra Day O’Connor’s concurring opinion in that case said, “While it is true that the [challenged sodomy law] applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is directed toward gay persons as a class.”

Taubman also invoked the New Mexico Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling that rejected Elane Photography’s claim that it could refuse wedding photography services to a lesbian couple.

“Masterpiece admits that it refused to serve Craig and Mullins ‘because of’ its opposition to persons entering into same-sex marriages, conduct which we conclude is closely correlated with sexual orientation,” Taubman wrote. “Therefore, even if we assume that CADA requires plaintiffs to establish an intent to discriminate… the [administrative law judge] reasonably could have inferred from Masterpiece’s conduct an intent to discriminate against Craig and Mullins ‘because of’ their sexual orientation.”

Taubman’s opinion also made short shrift of Phillips’ claim that designing a cake is artistic expression protected by the First Amendment.

“To the extent that the public infers from a Masterpiece wedding cake a message celebrating same-sex marriage, that message is more likely to be attributed to the customer than to Masterpiece,” he wrote. And Taubman noted, “Phillips denied Craig’s and Mullin’s request without any discussion regarding the wedding cake’s design or any possible written inscriptions,” so it is unclear exactly what speech he would be “compelled” to engage in when decorating the cake.

On Phillip’s religious free exercise claim, the court noted that under established Supreme Court precedent, an individual is not excused by their religious beliefs from complying with neutral laws of general application. Under that standard, because the CADA — the state’s anti-discrimination act, which furthers the state’s legitimate interest in eliminating discrimination in places of public accommodation — is such a law, no business or individual can claim a religious exemption from complying with it. The only exemption generally recognized under the law is for religious organizations that claim an exemption from anti-discrimination laws, for example, in their hiring those who perform religious functions.

Shortly after the opinion was released, Phillips’s attorney, Jeremy D. Tedesco, announced that an appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court would be attempted, though that does not guarantee that review will be granted.

Tedesco is from the Arizona-based Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal defense group, so Phillips does not bear the expense of continuing the litigation. The Washington Times, however, reported that supporters of Phillips have launched a crowd-funding drive to defray his expenses.

Craig and Mullins are represented by Paula Greisen of King & Greisen, a Denver firm, with Mark Silverstein and Sara Neel, Denver attorneys, and Ria Tabacco Mar, a New York attorney.

The Civil Rights Commission is represented by the state attorney general’s office.

Numerous amicus briefs were filed with the court from groups including the National Center for Lesbian Rights, Lambda Legal, Americans United for Separation of Church and State, the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, and groups representing small business associations and religious organizations.

10 Responses to Baker Denying Gay Couple a Wedding Cake Loses Appeal    

  1. seogora September 25, 2015 at 8:30 am

    Nice article, thanks Düğün fotoğrafçısı ankara

    Reply
  2. Jake October 6, 2015 at 8:18 am

    We did a gay wedding at Wedding Israel.

    Reply
  3. renny November 23, 2015 at 10:33 am

    Aw thanks lovely!! It is such a beautiful spot 🙂 x

    Reply
  4. www.lescape.ca November 24, 2015 at 5:04 am

    He noticed his ability to offer the two men other heated merchandise and, fairly flippantly, stated he would likewise decline to outline a cake for two hetero men who needed to praise their wedding.

    Reply
  5. phuket weding planer November 24, 2015 at 7:07 am

    Baker denying is wonderful blog that make cakes for the wedding so that people cut it and have fun themselves as much as they can they also take many pictures on that cakes so that movement will always remember for them.

    Reply
  6. asdfs November 25, 2015 at 7:15 am

    Best seo services by this website.
    Seo services

    Reply
  7. santa90 November 25, 2015 at 7:17 am

    Your sites are truly informative and exceptional online webpage. So, I am glad to visit these Essayontime.com reviews web services. It is absolutely genuine and great information for the great education life.

    Reply
  8. Kursus SEO Bandung April 21, 2016 at 11:01 pm

    seo is very important, it can make your blog and website has a good ranking in google moreover if you are good in seo your web anda blog will be at page one no one…

    Reply
  9. stenarobert August 30, 2016 at 8:45 am

    Your blog left me warmhearted. And also the matter was expressed beautifully. I am thankful to you on behalf of all others who cannot read this blog.

    wedding photographer dubai

    Reply
  10. Odiji October 23, 2016 at 7:52 am

    Nice review thanks Ankara SEO

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


eight + = seventeen