Colorado gay couple vs Christian baker – Opponents in LGBT cake case agree: It’s not about wedding cake

LEFT: In this Wednesday, Nov. 8, 2017, file photograph, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cake, speaks during a rally on the campus of a Christian college in Lakewood, Colo. The small rally was held to build support for Phillips, who is at the center of a case that will be considered by the U.S. Supreme Court in December. The case may determine if business owners like Phillips are having their right of religious liberty and free expression violated by having to offer their wedding services to same-sex couples. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski, file) RIGHT: In this Tuesday, Nov. 28, 2017, photograph, Charlie Craig and David Mullins are shown in their home in Denver. The Colorado couple is at the core of a legal case that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments on Tuesday, Dec. 5 in which Denver-area baker, Jack Phillips, cited his Christian faith in refusing to make a cake for the gay couple's wedding celebration in 2012. (AP Photo/David Zalubowski)

By DAVID CRARY,  AP National Writer  12/01 – In a legal case with profound implications for LGBT rights and religion’s place in public life, the opposing sides agree on this: It’s not about the cake.

At its core, the case that goes before the U.S. Supreme Court for oral arguments on Dec. 5 is a showdown between a gay couple from Colorado and a Denver-area baker who in 2012 cited his Christian faith in refusing to make a cake for their wedding celebration.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, was judged through multiple phases of litigation to have violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. Through his lawyers, he now gets to argue before the highest court in the land that he’s an artist who should not be compelled to create a cake that contradicts his religious views.

For Phillips’ legion of supporters — including conservative politicians, advocacy groups and religious institutions — the case has ramifications for creative professionals of all kinds.

“Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government,” Phillips recently told a rally of local supporters.

For advocates of LGBT rights, the stakes are perilously high. They fear a Supreme Court ruling in Phillips’ favor would open the door to discrimination by a wide range of business owners and entrepreneurs.

“Cakes can often have artistic or creative designs. So can sandwiches, legal briefs, bicycles, cars, flowers, medical care,” American Civil Liberties Union lawyer Chase Strangio argued in a recent blog post.

“If a baker can reject LGBTQ people because of who we are, then what about the mechanic, the florist, the doctor, the teacher?” Strangio asked. “This is not about cake. This is not about art. This is about survival.”


The case reaches the Supreme Court at a stressful time for the LGBT rights movement.

Just two years ago, the high court delivered the movement its greatest victory — a 5-4 decision paving the way for same-sex marriage to become legal nationwide. But that achievement, coming just 11 years after Massachusetts became the first state to recognize gay marriage, has been partly offset by subsequent political developments.

The sweeping Republican election victory in November 2016 solidified social conservatives’ dominance in Congress and a majority of states and set the stage for President Donald Trump’s administration to roll back several LGBT-friendly initiatives undertaken during Barack Obama’s two terms in office.

Protections for transgender students have been weakened, and Trump is seeking to ban transgender people from military service. In October, Attorney General Jeff Sessions — a longtime skeptic of LGBT-rights initiatives — issued “religious exemptions” guidance that could override many anti-discrimination protections for LGBT people and others.

The net result: LGBT activists see little prospect of short-term progress at the federal level, even as they remain heartened by the ever-growing ranks of corporations and local governments that are acting to make LGBT people feel welcome and to curb discrimination against them. The local laws can be important, given that only 21 states have statewide laws barring discrimination against gays and lesbians in public accommodations.

Lambda Legal, a prominent LGBT-rights group, was among dozens of organizations submitting briefs to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Colorado couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins.

The group argued that LGBT people, for all their recent civil rights advances, still encounter varied forms of discrimination in the public square. Among its examples: a lesbian couple denied infertility treatment in San Diego, a gay Iowa couple rebuffed in efforts to rent a wedding venue, a transgender man turned away from a New Jersey hospital where he sought a hysterectomy.

“This is why nondiscrimination laws like Colorado’s are so important,” wrote Lambda’s law and policy director, Jennifer Pizer. “So that people can live their lives without fearing that, at any moment, they may be turned away or verbally abused just for who they are.”

Craig and Mullins spent only a few moments at the bakery in 2012 before Philipps’ rebuff hit home.

“There was horrible pregnant pause,” Mullins recalls. “It was publicly humiliating and it was painful.”

“Never in a million years did we think that five years later we’d be going to the Supreme Court,” he said. “It’s been emotionally trying. You sort of have to relive that pain again and again.”


For opponents of same-sex marriage, religious liberty and religious freedom have become watchwords for a broad campaign to carve out more public space for their viewpoints.

There have been defeats. Earlier this year, Washington state’s Supreme Court ruled unanimously that florist Barronelle Stutzman broke the state’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. In October, two women who specialize in hand-lettering and calligraphy for weddings lost the latest round of their challenge of a Phoenix ordinance requiring them to provide their services for same-sex weddings.

There have been some victories as well.

In Michigan, a federal judge recently ordered the city of East Lansing to make room for a farmer who was barred from selling apples at a seasonal market because he doesn’t let gay couples get married at his orchard, which is a popular wedding spot. A panel of U.S. appellate judges has allowed a sweeping Mississippi law to take effect that lets government workers and business owners cite religious beliefs to deny services to LGBT people. The law, now the subject of an appeal to the Supreme Court, protects three beliefs: that marriage is only between a man and a woman, that gender cannot be changed and that sex outside of marriage is wrong.


Back in 2014, the Supreme Court declined to weigh in on a case with similarities to the Colorado dispute. The justices rebuffed a request to review a New Mexico Supreme Court decision holding that a photography studio violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws by refusing to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony.

Three years later, the high court has opted to wade into the same high-voltage issues, assessing whether Phillips’ right to freedom of speech outweighs Colorado’s interest in protecting Mullins and Craig from discrimination. It will mark the most important LGBT-rights case for conservative Coloradan Neil Gorsuch since he joined the Supreme Court in April.

However, the outcome could turn on the vote of Justice Anthony Kennedy, as it often does in cases that otherwise break along the court’s liberal-conservative divide.

Kennedy’s legacy is firmly tied to his authorship of major gay rights rulings dating back to 1996, including the landmark 2015 decision making same-sex marriage legal nationwide. At the same time, Kennedy, 81, has forcefully defended free-speech rights in his nearly 30 years as a justice.

Each side has tailored its arguments to appeal to one of those two strains in hopes of attracting Kennedy’s vote.

Phillips still stoutly defends his 2012 rebuff of Mullins and Craig, saying he offered to sell them virtually any of his baked goods except a custom cake for their wedding.

“I don’t create custom designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience,” he said at the recent rally of his supporters. “I don’t create cakes for Halloween, bachelor or bachelorette parties, and anti-American cakes. I’ve turned down a cake order for an anti-LGBT message.”

To the other side, Phillips’ arguments seem like an invitation to intolerance.

“This case is not about a cake. It’s not about a baker,” Craig says. “It’s about us being able to be free to be treated equally in the public realm.”


Associated Press writers Mark Sherman in Washington and P. Solomon Banda in Denver contributed to this report.’s-not-about-wedding-cake

Copyright 2017 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

Posted in: Court Rulings, Courts & Trials, Judges, Lawsuits, Politics, U.S. Supreme Court

Leave a Reply

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

4 × 4 =

Terms of Use for Posting Comments

Terms of Use

This site (the “Site”) is operated and maintained by Law Enforcement Education Foundation, Corporation (“Company”). Throughout the Site, the terms “we”, “us” and “our” refer to Company.  The words “user,” “you” and “your” as used herein refer to you.

Please read these terms and conditions of use (“Terms of Use”) carefully before contributing content. If you do not agree to these Terms of Use, please do not contribute content. Your use of the Site is subject to the Terms and Conditions found here .

By contributing content to the Site, you represent and warrant that you are at least eighteen (18) years old and that you have read and understand these Terms of Use and any amendments thereto and agree to be bound by them. If you are not at least eighteen (18) years old or you do not agree and accept these Terms of Use, you are prohibited from contributing content.

From time to time, we may permit users to submit content to the Site.  You hereby acknowledge and agree that by submitting remarks, comments, suggestions, ideas, graphics, feedback, edits, concepts, comments, photographs, illustrations and other materials (other than personal information and/or registration information) through the Site (individually and collectively, “Submissions”), you (i) grant us a nonexclusive, royalty-free, perpetual, transferable, irrevocable and fully sub-licensable right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, translate, distribute, publish, create derivative works from and publicly display and perform such Submissions throughout the world in any media, now known or hereafter created, without attribution to you; (ii) grant us the right to pursue at law any person or entity that violates your and/or our rights in your Submissions; and (iii) forever waive any and all of your rights, including but not limited to moral rights, if any, in and to your Submissions, including, without limitation, any all rights or requirements of attribution or identification of you as the author of the Submission or any derivative thereof.  We reserve the right to remove any of your Submissions from the Site, in whole or in part, without notice to you, for any reason or no reason.

Submissions are made voluntarily. Any submissions which include personally identifiable information are subject to our Privacy Policy found here .  You may not upload or otherwise publish content on the Site that (i) is confidential to you or any third party; (ii) is untrue, inaccurate, false or other than an original work of your authorship; (iii) that relates to or impersonates any other person; (iv) violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property rights of any person or entity; (v) contains any content, personally identifiable information or other information, or materials of any kind that relate or refer to any other person or entity other than the provider of the products, goods or services to which the Submission relates; or (vi) violates any law, or in any manner infringes or interferes with the rights of others, including but not limited to the use of names, information, or materials that (A) libel, defame, or invade the privacy of any third party, (B) are obscene or pornographic, (C) are harmful, threatening, offensive, abusive, harassing, vulgar, false or inaccurate, racially, sexually, ethnically or are otherwise objectionable or otherwise contrary to the laws of any place where such Submissions may be accessed; (D) constitute personal attacks on other individuals; (E) promote criminal, immoral or illegal activity; (F) promote or advertise any person, product or service or solicit funds; or (G) are deemed confidential by any contract or policy.

You are solely responsible for any Submissions you make and their accuracy. We take no responsibility and assume no liability for any Submissions posted by you or any third party.

Unless approved by us in writing in advance, you agree not to: (i) provide or create a link to the Site; or (ii) create any frames at any other sites pertaining to any of the content located on the Site.

We reserve the right, in our discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use for Posting Comments by posting updates and/or changes to our Site.  It is your responsibility to check this page periodically for changes.  Your continued use of, and/or access to the Site, following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use for Posting Comments, constitutes your acceptance of those changes.