BQ 81245 Religious Rights of Business Owners

[vorpal blade]

Just a cake? The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., Jack C. Phillips, kindly offered to bake and decorate a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins. He made no stipulation as to how the cake would be decorated. On what grounds did the complainants Charlie Craig and David Mullins refuse to do business with Mr. Jack C. Phillips?

From the court case:

The following facts are undisputed:
...
6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”
7. Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.

Source.

Say what you will about the rest of the case, but this part seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.

Right. That is what I am saying. As the record plainly shows from the point of view of the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., Jack C. Phillips, kindly offered to bake and decorate a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins. He made no stipulation as to how the cake would be decorated. It is pretty cut and dried. There should be no need to debate it. That's what the court case says. Wouldn't you agree?

[S.A.M.]

Uh no, that's not what the court case I am reading stated. It's pretty cut and dried that he refused to make them any type of cake, decorated or not, that was for a same-sex wedding. I don't see where it was stated whether he did that kindly or unkindly, either.

The undisputed evidence is that Phillips categorically refused to prepare a cake for Complainants’ same-sex wedding before there was any discussion about what that cake would look like. Phillips was not asked to apply any message or symbol to the cake, or to construct the cake in any fashion that could be reasonably understood as advocating same-sex marriage.

Are you just trolling now, vorpal blade?

[vorpal blade]

The following facts are undisputed:
...
6. Phillips informed Complainants that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Phillips told the men, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”
7. Complainants immediately got up and left the store without further discussion with Phillips.

Uh no, that's not what the court case I am reading stated. It's pretty cut and dried that he refused to make them any type of cake, decorated or not, that was for a same-sex wedding. I don't see where it was stated whether he did that kindly or unkindly, either.

I've been saying "Jack C. Phillips, kindly offered to bake and decorate a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins. He made no stipulation as to how the cake would be decorated." You have added the clause "for same-sex weddings." There is a big difference between the two statements.

I think you must be concentrating on only one part of the statement. Notice that Phillips told the men, "I'll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same-sex weddings." Don't you see that he said, in a manner that I think looks kindly, that he would make them "birthday cakes," etc. True, he said he would not make them a cake for a same-sex wedding. But false, he did NOT say he wouldn't make them a cake.

Mr. Phillips just couldn't agree to bake them a cake that was for the express purpose of celebrating a wedding for a same-sex marriage. He had made special cakes and pastries before for gay people. He had no problem with that. He decorated the cakes the way they wanted them. What he objected to was being asked to bake a cake for the purpose of celebrating a same-sex wedding.

All Charlie Craig and David Mullins had to do was to say something like this, "I understand your feelings, Mr. Phillips. Would you please bake us a 'special occasion' cake. I'd like it to have an inner layer of rainbow colors." Or something like that. Mr. Phillips had already agreed to bake such a cake, as long as you didn't call it a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. Charlie Craig and David Mullins would have gotten the cake they wanted. Mr. Phillips would not have felt that he was compromising his principles.

So, my question remains, why do you feel that Charlie Craig and David Mullins refused to do business with Mr. Phillips?

[Marduk]

So Vorpal, what you're suggesting is that they should have a "special occasion" cake that was just like a "wedding" cake, but that wasn't called a wedding cake, and that would've been acceptable? Something that was separate from a wedding cake, but equal to it?

[yayfulness]

To me, "I just won't make cakes for same-sex weddings" pretty clearly means "I won't make cakes that are intended to be used at same-sex weddings." Which would still preclude him from making the cake, unless I'm misunderstanding something important here. It's the use of the cake, not the name of the cake, that he was objecting to.

[yayfulness]

And, since you asked, I suspect that the couple in question refused to do business with Mr. Phillips because they interpreted his statement as meaning that he would not be willing to create a cake for the purpose that they wanted. If he meant something else, maybe he should have clarified it, because to me there's really only one way to interpret that statement and it's not the way you're interpreting it.

[S.A.M.]

The point is, as Marduk explained in the first responses to this thread, that:

There are, and always have been, restrictions on what individuals can do with their religious freedom.

I can infer along with you that Mr. Phillips was just as kind to Charlie's mom on the phone the next day. I certainly hope so:

The next day, Ms. Munn called Masterpiece Cakeshop and spoke with Phillips. Phillips advised Ms. Munn that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs, and because Colorado does not recognize same-sex marriages.

How he said it is irrelevant, and is not stipulated in the court document.

Calling it something other than a wedding cake would still compromise his principle of not making cakes for same-sex weddings.

Charlie Craig and David Mullins did not refuse to do business with Mr. Phillips. They went to court to get him to do such business.

[NovemberEast]

unrelated to the direction the discussion is going, but...

I just want to know why Charlie and David would want someone who disagrees with their wedding to make their cake?

I personally, would not want any disagreement with my nuptials to touch any part of my wedding.

[vorpal blade]

And, since you asked, I suspect that the couple in question refused to do business with Mr. Phillips because they interpreted his statement as meaning that he would not be willing to create a cake for the purpose that they wanted. If he meant something else, maybe he should have clarified it, because to me there's really only one way to interpret that statement and it's not the way you're interpreting it.

What I am suggesting is that the couple did not have to disclose the true purpose of the cake.

[vorpal blade]

unrelated to the direction the discussion is going, but...

I just want to know why Charlie and David would want someone who disagrees with their wedding to make their cake?

I personally, would not want any disagreement with my nuptials to touch any part of my wedding.

After Mr. Phillips rejected their request to make them a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding I don't believe Charlie and David really wanted Mr. Phillips to bake them a cake. Their motives for leaving hurriedly and bringing legal action were not to get a cake. Perhaps they went into the bakery naively thinking they would be treated just as any other couple, despite all the hostility for their sexual orientation they say they have encountered in their lives. I thought it might be useful to give some press accounts of how they felt afterwards, in their own words, which do arouse sympathy.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/0 ... gay-voices

"We were all very upset, but I was angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified," Mullins said. He said he vented his frustration on Facebook and was surprised at how "the story ended up catching fire," with responses from local media and bloggers in other countries posting about it.

"We felt that the best way to honor the support that they had given us was to follow this complaint through," he said.

http://www.mprnews.org/story/2014/04/05 ... e-a-cause-

The couple said Phillips' rejection was more painful than the times they have been slurred in public.

"It's like the institution and society are saying: 'You're not equal,'" Mullins said.

The affair has made them realize, Mullins said, that "as a minority, you don't have the option to opt out of the culture wars."

http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/05/30/b ... tion-case/

For the couple, they said they always believed they were in the right and it was important to pursue the case for future customers.

“We’ve already been discriminated there,” Mullins said. “We’ve already been treated badly.

“The next time a gay couple wanders in there asking for a wedding cake, they won’t have the experience we had.

“They will have a responsible experience and leave feeling respected.”

[S.A.M.]

Right. They did not refuse to do business with him. They felt obligated to take him to court so he would do business with them and anyone else.

Charlie Craig and David Mullins did not refuse to do business with Mr. Phillips. They went to court to get him to do such business, despite, as the above quotes show, having the same type of feelings NovemberEast described.

[yayfulness]

And, since you asked, I suspect that the couple in question refused to do business with Mr. Phillips because they interpreted his statement as meaning that he would not be willing to create a cake for the purpose that they wanted. If he meant something else, maybe he should have clarified it, because to me there's really only one way to interpret that statement and it's not the way you're interpreting it.

What I am suggesting is that the couple did not have to disclose the true purpose of the cake.

This leaves us with two alternative situations. Either they knew in advance that Mr. Phillips would be unwilling to bake a cake for their wedding and they asked him anyway, or they did not know in advance. If they knew in advance (which from the quotes you provided it sounds like they did not), then there's a whole debate that we could have on the ethical implications. If they did not know in advance, then they had no reason, except for a general sense of hostility from society, that they should not disclose the nature of the cake.

Not knowing in advance whether this particular baker is willing to bake cakes for same-sex weddings, they have two options: either they disguise the nature of their relationship and the nature of their cake (from this baker or any other baker whose stance on gay marriage is not clearly known) or they risk being refused the services of the business. I hope you can see the irony of a gay couple almost literally being forced back into the closet in order to get services for their wedding. Whether or not the baker was within his rights to refuse them service, I think suggesting a homosexual couple pretend to be straight in preparation for their wedding is a really terrible and insensitive idea.

[Amity]

unrelated to the direction the discussion is going, but...

I just want to know why Charlie and David would want someone who disagrees with their wedding to make their cake?

I personally, would not want any disagreement with my nuptials to touch any part of my wedding.

I don't think the purpose of the lawsuit was to force the baker into making them a wedding cake. Cases take months or years to wend their way through the court system, so odds are that the plaintiffs' wedding had already happened by the time the case was decided. Rather, the lawsuit happened because the plaintiffs believed they had encountered unlawful discrimination and wanted the legal system to remedy it.

[vorpal blade]

Yayfulness: I agree with you. My point, which I now regret trying to make in the way I did, was that getting a cake from this bakery was not the real issue. They had ways to get a wedding cake from this particular bakery but only if they disguised their purpose. This they were not willing to do, and I don't blame them for it. In my opinion an important part of what they were doing was to establish that gay couples deserve social acceptance.

[vorpal blade]

unrelated to the direction the discussion is going, but...

I just want to know why Charlie and David would want someone who disagrees with their wedding to make their cake?

I personally, would not want any disagreement with my nuptials to touch any part of my wedding.

I don't think the purpose of the lawsuit was to force the baker into making them a wedding cake. Cases take months or years to wend their way through the court system, so odds are that the plaintiffs' wedding had already happened by the time the case was decided. Rather, the lawsuit happened because the plaintiffs believed they had encountered unlawful discrimination and wanted the legal system to remedy it.

You are correct, Amity, about the timing. According to this news source dated July 20, 2012
http://www.westword.com/restaurants/mas ... le-5727921

Yesterday afternoon, 28-year-old Dave Mullins and 31-year-old Charlie Craig stopped by Lakewood's Masterpiece Cakeshop to order their wedding reception cake -- what they hoped would be a rainbow-layered masterpiece decked out in teal and red frosting (their ceremony colors). Although they'll be reciting their vows in Provincetown, Massachusetts, in September, the couple plans to celebrate with a reception for friends and family in Denver in October. But after bakery owner Jack Phillips listened to their request, they say, he refused it. His business doesn't create cakes for gay weddings.

The legal action was not even filed until the following year, and the case was not decided by Judge Rober Spencer until December 2013. But Mullins and Craig wasted no time in ordering a new cake. By the next day

The couple has now "decided to go to the gayest cake shop we could think of. We went to Le Bakery Sensual and had a great experience," Mullins says. "They made us feel great, and no one batted an eye. When we told them what had happened, more than a few eyebrows went up."

[vorpal blade]

In summary Charlie Craig and David Mullins were told by Mr. Phillips that he would bake them a cake for another occasion, but he refused to create a wedding cake for their same-sex marriage. The message immediately received by Craig and Mullins in this refusal was that, in the eyes of Mr. Phillips, their same-sex marriage was not of equal moral value and was not deserving of the same respect as a hetero-sexual marriage. This was the message Phillips intended to give, and was correctly received, and was also understood the same way by both supporters of Phillips and supporters of Craig and Mullins. This is evidenced by all the comments made by Mullins and Craig that I have quoted.

Charlie Craig and David Mullins went out the next day and ordered a cake where they knew their values would be validated. They went to a bakery that was about 10 miles from their home in Westminster, instead of the Masterpiece bakery 16 miles away in Lakewood. At this point it was not the cake, per se, that was the issue. They wanted (we see from their comments) to use the discrimination law to compel Mr. Phillips to express through his cake-making talents that same-sex marriage was equal to heterosexual marriage and deserving of the same respect, so that the next gay couple that wanders into his shop would “leave feeling respected.”

That is what this issue is really about. Those who do not have the same respect for same-sex marriage, and feel it is not of equal moral value to heterosexual marriage, must be forced through the weight of law to express a point of view contrary to the dictates of their own conscience. Freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not unlimited, as most of us know, but those freedoms should not be abridged simply because someone else feels that his beliefs are not being respected or given moral equality. Judge Robert Spencer erred in his judgment, and Mr. Phillips became the victim of discrimination for his creed.

[Digit]

Paradox of Tolerance

[Marduk]

But Vorpal, that can be said about any kind of law that enforces anything. As much as you'd like it to be different, whatever laws exist enshrine a particular moral viewpoint at the expense of another. Should a shop owner be allowed to refuse black people into his restaurant, because he believes them to be morally inferior? Or should those of us who view all races as morally equal and defined by their choices be allowed to use the law to compel that the law recognize differently? You can't have it both ways. Either the law says that heterosexuality is superior or it says that heterosexuality and homosexuality are morally equivalent. It can't do both.

[NovemberEast]

It should be mentioned that the baker also will not make halloween or bachelor party cakes.

[S.A.M.]

If a baker refuses to make Halloween or bachelor cakes for anyone, that is ok. If a baker refuses to make Halloween or bachelor party cakes for specific groups of people, let's say Mormons, for example, that is not ok.