Colorado baker who refused to bake a same-sex wedding cake now has to defend himself for not baking a gender transition cake

Few people can say that they’ve had a case go to the Supreme Court. Jack Phillips can. He’s the Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same sex couple in 2012. The couple took this to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who ruled in favor of the couple.

According to the Supreme Court, the case addressed whether Colorado’s public accommodations law “violates the First Amendment as applied to an individual who declines to design and create custom wedding cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations that violate his sincerely held religious beliefs.”

In a 7-2 ruling, the court ruled in favor of Phillips.

Last summer, a transgender lawyer asked Phillips to bake a cake (blue on the outside, pink on the inside) in observance of the anniversary of the lawyer’s gender transition.

Phillips refused.

The lawyer took the matter to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission who has ordered mediation. While this might appear to be a more moderate move from the Civil Rights Commission than the previous legal challenge over a same-sex wedding cake, what is there to mediate?

Why did the lawyer intentionally have to troll Phillips? Phillips is a man who has strongly held religious convictions and these groups cannot accept that. They are trying to force compliance by harassing this baker. The order of mediation calls for Phillips and the lawyer (Autumn Scardina) to seek out an “amicable resolution.”

Such as what?

In the first case, Phillips told the same-sex couple he’d sell them any item in his bakery, but he just couldn’t make them a wedding cake.

And yet, Scardina intentionally sought out someone who he knew would refuse.

What is there to mediate? Phillips isn’t going to do it. He’s clearly not opposed to fighting a long legal battle over his religious convictions. The lawyer clearly could go to another bakery and have a baker happily provide the desired cake. This is persecuting Phillips for exercising his religious beliefs.

Given that the Supreme Court has previously ruled in favor of Philips and against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in part, because the Civil Rights Commission did not provide religious neutrality when taking Phillips’ religious convictions into account. Is it possible that the “mediation” is mainly lip service to giving some impression of respecting Phillips while ultimately planning a similar outcome? Time will tell.

Yesterday, Phillips sued Colorado governor John Hickenlooper  and other state officials.

It’s not about cake. It’s about imposing the progressive will on someone who has the audacity to disagree.

Eliel Cruz, of the Anti-Violence Project said: “This is a concerted effort by Phillips, in concert with designated hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, to push anti-LGBTQ discrimination under the guise of so-called religious freedom,” I would argue it’s actually the opposite. It’s a concerted effort designed by some in the LGBT community to push discrimination against those who are religious.

Thanks for reading! I’d love to hear what you think, and don’t forget to subscribe! 

Similar posts
Supreme Court rules in favor of Christian baker
SCOTUS gay marriage decision: 3 years later