Cakes, Flowers, and Religious Freedom
Radio Commentary, 90.7, 91.7 New Life FM, June 8, 2018 – By Sue Ella Deadwyler
Life-changing decisions aren’t new to Jack Phillips in Colorado. He’s the man who lost 40 percent of his income because of his religious beliefs. Jack and his wife opened Masterpiece Cakeshop (sic) in 1993, but in 2012 the Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided Jack’s faith and his business were less important than the lifestyle of a couple of his customers.
After Jack refused to decorate a wedding cake for two male customers, his business was boycotted within hours, he was verbally harassed, and his life was threatened. Claiming Jack discriminated against them, the men filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided Jack was guilty of illegal discrimination because he would not decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding, although, clearly, his action was based on his faith.
Because of the Commission’s decision, Jack stopped making wedding cakes, lost 40 percent of his business, and let six of his ten employees go. Incidentally, he wouldn’t decorate cakes for Halloween, either.Since the Commission’s 2012 decision, the case has been on appeal. On December 5th, the U.S. Supreme Court heard both sides of the argument and on June 4th, just days ago, they voted 7-2 in Jack’s favor. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor cast the two dissenting votes.
In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions.” The he added, “The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”
A Brigham Young University law professor, who is an expert on religion and law, reacted this way, “It’s a very narrow decision…. What we really want to know, and what we’re really not sure of after this opinion, is what if members of the Colorado Civil Rights C0mmission had not expressed distaste for religion?”
After winning the case, the attorney for Alliance Defending Freedom said, “Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was, openly, antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage. The Court was right to condemn that.”
The Court will soon rule on a discrimination case about providing flowers for a same-sex wedding. For Georgia Insight I’m Sue Ella Deadwyler, your Capitol correspondent.