Christian Baker Who Refused Gay Wedding Looks to Supreme Court


A Christian baker is appealing to the Supreme Court after a federal court ruled he must bake a cake for a gay wedding.

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, declined to make a cake for a gay wedding because he says it conflicts with his religious convictions. A lower court ruled Philips could not cite his faith as reason to decline the request and ordered that he and his employees bake cakes regardless of their religious convictions.

Phillips decided to fight for his religious freedoms by filing a petition to the Supreme Court Friday.


If he were a million dollar Rock Star or the NBA he wouldnt have a problem


He has the exact same option as those mentioned: not to do business in a state that prohibits discrimination against LGBT people.


An option available only to the rich and famous. As always the left takes great delight in crushing those who dont agree with them.


Apparently the freedom of religion only applies if a particular state allows it.


No state, or country, should allow someone to use "religious freedom"as an excuse to justify discrimination in a public business.


No, the American right to freedom of religion is fundamentally based on a right to not participate. Is your religion a pacifist one? You don’t have to serve in the military if drafted. Is your religion opposed to insurance like the Amish? You don’t have to pay into social security or medical insurance schemes. There are many other examples.

What the right to freedom of religion is not is participating in the public sphere while ignoring the rules you claim “violate your beliefs”. There is no constitutional right to run a bakery. There is no constitutional right to operate a licensed business but ignore the rules you don’t agree with. If the act of running a bakery in Colorado violates your religious beliefs you are free not to; you aren’t being forced to run that business.


Funny you mention that. I looked and saw no constitutional right to a cake, either. It seems to me you believe that if a business doesn’t operate based on what you believe in or what the popular opinion is, they shouldn’t be able operate at all. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Look, they aren’t being denied service because they’re gay. If the customer wants a cake for a graduation party or birthday or class reunion and just so happens to be gay, I’m sure the baker would be more than happy to serve them. It boils down to the baker recognizing marriage as a union between one man and one woman (as God intended) and not wanting to be a part of any other kind. It’s just as easy for the customer to find another business to cater their event as it is to force someone to violate their conscience, if not easier.


It’s not popular opinion, it’s the law. The baker is contending that his religious freedoms are being infringed upon because the law in the state he is operating his business in prohibits him from discriminating against LGBT people. He is entitled to his belief that gay marriages are not the same as heterosexual marriages, but under the law they are equivalent. Denying a cake to a gay customer for a gay wedding violates Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.

Phillips would have a case if the government was forcing him to run his bakery. In that case his rights would be infringed upon. But he is voluntarily choosing to operate his business, and by operating his business he is agreeing to follow the law. If he feels the law is in opposition to his religious beliefs he is free to cease operating the business.


The Bill of Rights protects the free exercise of religion. Nowhere does it state that there is an inalienable right to obtain goods and services from individuals or corporations upon demand.


Can a baker refuse to bake a cake shaped like a sex organ? Can it refuse to bake a cake for a KKK rally, or a Westboro Baptist get together requiring some objectionable slogans on the cake?

Can a Catholic photographer be required to photograph a gay wedding? A snake handlers prayer service? A pederast wedding? A nudist wedding? A BDSM wedding? A polygamous wedding? Can he be required to photograph a reception that includes explicit sex acts? Just how much of a baker’s or a photographer’s religion will he be required to forego? To what extent will freedom of association for businesses be considered criminal? Will high end restaurants be required to take down the “no shirt, no shoes, no service” signs? How much freedom do citizens have to give up to satisfy the current downard spiraling cultural trends?


Where is the beating the dead horse smilie?

While we ought to be believing the best of others, some will choose to see discrimination against LGBTQI individuals instead of refusal to cooperate in the dysfunction of an action–LGBTQI marriage.

Federal law may say anything at any given time; people of color were once counted as 3/5 a person. That doesn’t make a decision morally legitimate. There is a Lawgiver higher than SCOTUS, POTUS, US Congress. Without the free exercise of religion (any or none), all other rights have no foundation. Free exercise is more than belief behind closed doors.

It was said that our Constitution would only govern a people of faith. We are seeing this in our time.


There’s also no right to run a business that ignores state and federal laws. By volunteering to run a business you agree to follow additional laws (health codes, licensing requirements, zoning regulations, etc.) that don’t apply to private life. One of those requirements you’re voluntarily agreeing to is to not illegally discriminate against customers.


Conflating people and actions.


Of course, as long as you’re providing the same service to all customers. If you sold a sex organ cake for a heterosexual marriage but not a gay marriage that would be discrimination. Similarly, if you sell wedding cakes for heterosexual marriages but not gay marriages that is discrimination.

Can a Catholic photographer be required to photograph a gay wedding? A snake handlers prayer service? A pederast wedding? A nudist wedding? A BDSM wedding? A polygamous wedding? Can he be required to photograph a reception that includes explicit sex acts?

Yes, a photographer could have a policy against nudity or sex acts if applied equally. He could not generally discriminate based on religion or sexual orientation of the client.

Just how much of a baker’s or a photographer’s religion will he be required to forego?

Zero. If he feels the laws don’t allow him to live according to his beliefs he can stop providing that service.


How many goodly creatures are there here! / How beauteous mankind is! O brave new world, / That has such people in it"

Adolf Huxley


Nope. If you sell wedding cakes but refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple you are discriminating against those people because of their sexual orientation. That is illegal.


LOL . . . good call Tablefor9

As requested:

It says in this article , linked to the article which _Abyssinia first linked in the OP , that what Mr Phillips is asking the Supreme Court , is to protect his** freedom of expression** ; the religious freedom is secondary . His being an artist gives him a legitimate claim .


If you read the articles, the defense is that a person can’t be forced to physically do something against their religion. He still sells cakes to everybody, but he objects to being forced to use his personal talents to draw the requested design.

IF we follow your interpretation, the government can force singers to sing at Trump conventions or give up their singing career. :eek:

A seamstress will be forced by the government to make white KKK uniforms, or give up her sewing career. :eek:

The civil rights laws were made to protect blacks because of the extreme suffering and injustice. There is hardly any discrimination against LBGTs, but they want to use the laws to change citizens personal beliefs. Heck, Gays make more money than the average person, why are they even included in civil rights laws?


This baker is not discriminating. He is participating in his first amendment protected free exercise of religious faith. There is a significant difference between discrimination and free exercise. If a same gender couple comes in and asks for two cupcakes, and the baker refuses, based on his assumption or even knowledge that they were gay, that would be discrimination. It is the “marriage” ceremony the baker objects to, not the individuals. Hence, it is not discriminatory.

Now, personally, I’d be a businessman and sell them the best darn cake they could get, and charge them a fee commensurate. I’d just insist that the name of the bakery not be attached to the ceremony or reception. Why? Because I would not want someone assuming I approve.

But let’s be clear, the progressive movement is opposed to most of the constitutionally protected rights -due process, keep and bear arms, free speech, religious free exercise, etc. And since the progressives on the Court march in lock step in support of their movement, not the constitution, I don’t believe this guy will have much luck at the Supreme Court.


DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit