News

Gay wedding cake would ‘displease God’

Gay wedding cake would ‘displease God’

The Colorado Court of Appeals yesterday ruled that the owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, violated the state’s public-accommodations law when its owner, Jack Phillips, above, refused to make a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a gay couple who wanted to marry in 2012.

The court, according to this report, court wrote in its decision:

Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art, that he can honor God through his artistic talents, and that he would displease God by creating cakes for same-sex marriages.

However, it found that a lower court had the right to issue a cease-and-desist order against Masterpiece. It said that having to bake a cake for a gay wedding doesn’t place an undue burden on Philips’s religious beliefs, nor is it a violation of his right to free speech.

It’s possible that Masterpiece will appeal the case to the Colorado Supreme Court. In a statement, the group trepresenting him, the Alliance Defending Freedom, said that it is discussing “further legal options”.

The court said.

The act of designing and selling a wedding cake to all customers free of discrimination does not convey a celebratory message about same-sex weddings,. 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.

David Mullins and Charlie Craig

Charlie Craig, left, and David Mullins

Commenting here on the decision, Mullins said:

Being denied service by Masterpiece Cakeshop was offensive and dehumanizing especially in the midst of arranging what should be a joyful family celebration. No one should fear being turned away from a public business because of who they are.

We are grateful to have the support of our community and our state, and we hope that today’s decision will help ensure that no one else will experience this kind of discrimination again in Colorado.

Longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public ventures, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

Said Amanda C Goad, staff attorney with the ACLU Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender Project:

While we all agree that religious freedom is important, no one’s religious beliefs make it acceptable to break the law by discriminating against prospective customers. No one is asking Masterpiece’s owner to change his beliefs, but treating gay people differently because of who they are is discrimination plain and simple.

Sara R Neel, staff attorney with the ACLU of Colorado added

Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law when it comes to discriminating against customers, and the state has rightly determined otherwise. It’s important for all Coloradans to be treated fairly by every business that is open to the public – that’s good for business and good for the community.

Hat tip BarrieJohn

20 responses to “Gay wedding cake would ‘displease God’”

  1. L.Long says:

    Another lying xtian! When did he refuse to do cakes for divorced people?? The one thing jesus said was a sin!

  2. Angela_K says:

    “Masterpiece Cakeshop has willfully and repeatedly considered itself above the law” And that is the way of the religious, pick bits of your “holy” book to discriminate then whine when having to obey the law. I wonder how Mr Phillips knows his god would be displeased, did he asked him/her and not get an answer so decided on his god’s behalf?

  3. Har Davids says:

    God’s displeasure would have been obvious if he’d baked the cake and all wedding-guests, grooms included, had been smitten in some horrible way. Another chance to ‘prove’ God exists down the drain.

  4. Peterat says:

    If he’s as powerful and merciful as they claim he is, God would understand that a pair of his favourtie creations wanted to celebrate their love for each other. Cake as art??? Interesting.

  5. Broga says:

    So the creator and Lord of the cosmos with its billions of galaxies each with billions of stars is concerned about the baking of wedding cakes? Can’t even Christians see how this trivialises their imaginary God and reduces him to a petty, interfering, silly fool.

  6. Trevor Blake says:

    Perhaps the baker prefers the cakes of Ezekiel 4:12 – “And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight.”

    That having been said, freedom of speech and association is either free or false. The same respect for the freedoms of Mister Craig and Mister Mullin is the respect I have for the freedoms of Mister Phillips.

  7. barriejohn says:

    Trevor Blake: We had this debate here recently. This man is free to believe just what he likes, and I would extend to him the freedom to teach his beliefs freely as well. He can say that homosexuality is a great evil; that “God” created women to be subservient to men; that “he” created separate races and marked out black people as inferior by their colour, obnoxious as those, and other, views may be to the rest of us. What he CANNOT do is to discriminate against people upon the basis of those views. As a member of society he needs to adhere to standards of behaviour that the majority find acceptable.

  8. Rob Andrews says:

    @Broga:

    Yeah… theists have said to me, that atheists are egocentric for thinking that “man is above everything”. No power”higher than mans laws “etc. Well it’s even more egocentic to think that there’s a force in the universe that cares about who YOU personally bake cakes for,or how YOU pray to him.

    “Man is the only animal that has the true religion–several of them…”
    -Mark Twain

  9. Broga says:

    @Rob Andrews: The late, great Christopher Hitchens says something similar in his brilliant introduction to “The Portable Atheist.” He writes (as I remember it) of humans being on a speck of rock, spinning round a medium star on the edge of a vast galaxy amidst unimaginable space. And we think we are they centre of the universe and the most important thing in it according to Christians.

    Someone else said “the cosmos is indifferent to what happens to me.” When I look at the stars which, as I live in a remote area I can see clearly, I find their vastness and my irrelevance strangely comforting. I wouldn’t be so comforted trying to appease a mysterious , arbitrary and vengeful God who might decide to consign me to hell.

  10. barriejohn says:

    Broga: “The universe seems neither benign nor hostile, merely indifferent.”

    The late, great Carl Sagan (better than your Hitchens, whom we Saganists consider a false god!)

    Also: “I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.

    The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there’s little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides. ”

    https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Carl_Sagan

  11. asquith says:

    For nature, heartless, witless nature,
    Will neither care nor know

  12. asquith says:

    For nature, heartless, witless nature,
    Will neither care nor know

  13. Broga says:

    We are part of nature although as arrogant humans we tend to see ourselves as separate. Another reminder of our trivial existence is shown by placing us in the context of time. The dinosaurs died out about 65 million years ago. They lived for 100 plus million years. The carboniferous period, perhaps as lush and fecund as any period, lasted about 50 million years before the dinosaurs. We humans, depending on how we define ourselves have been living in our present form for perhaps 200,000 years.

    Something like 95% plus of all species which existed are now extinct. An interesting question is what was God doing for all these millions of years before he created his beloved human. And why did the Master Planner create all these creatures and then make them extinct?

  14. Trevor Blake says:

    Barriejohn: “As a member of society he needs to adhere to standards of behaviour that the majority find acceptable.”

    That is the argument presented on that Mister Craig and Mister Mullin should not be able to legally wed, and that they should either not be gay or keep quiet about it. I disagree with that argument.

  15. asquith says:

    James Watson: “I don’t think we’re for anything, we’re just products of evolution. You can say ‘Gee, your life must be pretty bleak if you don’t think there’s a purpose’ but I’m anticipating a good lunch.”

  16. Broga says:

    @asquith: Great quote from James Watson. Thanks. The fact that I’m not for anything doesn’t make me feel my life is bleak. It leaves me free. As a philosophy, or attitude if that is too grand, I think carpe diem has a lot going for it. The idea of living one’s life to earn a future reward after death seems bleak to me.

  17. barriejohn says:

    Trevor Blake: It’s a tough one, but in a civilized society (hahaha) we all make compromises all of the time. That doesn’t mean that we abandon our principles or give up the struggle for what we consider to be human rights. That’s why this creature should be free to put forward his own viewpoint. Maybe we differ fundamentally here, but there are, for instance, many naturists who restrict themselves to going naked only in private because they understand that such behaviour is found offensive by some. It is, generally, the religious who are unable to find an accommodation with others’ points of view.

  18. Trevor Blake says:

    Barriejohn: “it’s a tough one but in a civilized society (hahaha) we all make compromises all of the time. That doesn’t mean that we abandon our principles or give up the struggle for what we consider to be human rights. That’s why this creature should be free to put forward his own viewpoint. Maybe we differ fundamentally here, but there are, for instance, many naturists who restrict themselves to going naked only in private because they understand that such behaviour is found offensive by some.”

    Once again, the argument for one is the argument for the other.

  19. dennis says:

    @Trevor Blake @Barriejohn we turned away from secular discrimination in the states with the civil rights movement and now today with the LGBTQ movement. Its simple to me if you are a bigot or atheist you open up a store you must sell to an inter-racial couple or a proselytizing xtian. If your store sells only religious junk you still have to sell me a bible because when your door opened up you have entered the world of the free market place.
    the county elected employee or hired employee must still issue a license and do his or her job because they are operating in the secular world.
    the little mom and pop store that American republicans love to put on a pedestal are being used as a weapon for a return to the pre civil rights days “nobody going to tell me who to sell to” was a main stay of southern defiance back in the civil rights days. Again discrimination has raised its ugly head in the secular world.
    the naked may be the next group for secularizing!