Ethics & Religion
December 7, 2017
Religious Liberty at Supreme Court
By Mike McManus
Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, was
asked by a gay couple to make wedding cake celebrating their marriage.
He refused and they sued him. The case was heard this week at the
Phillips said, "I am here at the Supreme Court today because I
respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would celebrate a
view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith's core teachings on
marriage. I offered to sell the two gentlemen suing me anything else in
"For that decision, which was guided by an established set of religious
beliefs, I've endured a five-year court battle. It's been very hard on
me and my family. We have faced death threats and harassment. I've had
to stop creating the wedding art that I love, which means we have lost
much of our business - so much so, that we are struggling to pay our
bills and keep the shop afloat."
LGBT activists have portrayed the case as a dispute over being treated
equally in public accommodations. In oral arguments at the Supreme
Court, justices heard that state "fairness" agendas can trump the U.S.
The homosexuals, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, said they were
"mortified" when they realized they could not force Phillips to violate
his faith and promote their lifestyle choice. They filed a case with
Colorado's Civil Rights Commission. One commissioner, Diann Rice, said
using religious freedom to justify discrimination was "despicable." She
asserted, "Freedom of religion has been used to justify all kinds of
discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be
David Cole, a lawyer for the couple, said a decision against them would
relegate gay and lesbian couples to "second class status."
Ironically, when Phillips refused to make the cake in 2012, the couple
could not get married in Colorado, which prohibited same-sex marriages.
They had to go to another state.
Tony Perkins, President of the Family Research Council, spoke in front
of the Supreme Court while the case was being debated inside. He said,
"An overwhelming 81% of Americans say we should be free to believe and
live according to our beliefs.
"And that's the question being debated right now behind me in the
Supreme Court. Can Americans be denied the ability to live and speak
according to their beliefs and be forced to use their talents to speak a
message that is the polar opposite of their beliefs?"
James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family who now runs Family Talk,
charged that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision in 2015 requiring
all states offer same-sex marriages, "is an expression of hostility
toward people who take their Christianity seriously."
His view was supported by the four dissenting justices who warned that
the decision had no connection to the Constitution and likely will be
used to attack Christianity.
Justice Anthony Kennedy, who likely holds the deciding vote, asked
whether a baker could put a sign in his window saying, "We do not bake
cakes for gay weddings." A lawyer for the Trump Administration, who
supports Phillips, said yes, so long as the cakes were custom made.
Solicitor General Noel Francisco, the Trump Administration lawyer,
acknowledged it would be harder to justify discrimination against
interracial couples than gay ones. "Race is particularly unique," he
That distinction did not sit well with some justices and an attorney for
the gay couple said it would relegate gay and lesbian couples to "second
Kennedy told Francisco that Phillips stance "means that there's
basically an ability to boycott gay marriages." However, he added,
"Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most
meaningful when it is mutual. It seems to me that the state in its
position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips's
The justices discussed the possibility of returning the case to the
commission for a rehearing before an unbiased panel. That prospect
appealed to Chief Justice Roberts.
Justice Kennedy was also troubled by part of the commission's ruling
that required Phillips to retrain his employees, who included family
members, telling them that a state anti-discrimination law overrode
their religious beliefs.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said that was routine: "All he has to say is
that this is what the law of Colorado requires."
Justice Samuel Alito noted that when Phillips turned down the couple,
same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado. "So if Craig and
Mullins had gone to a state office and said we want a marriage license,
they would not have been accommodated."
Phillips should win the case, since state law opposed gay marriage.
Copyright (c) 2017 Michael J. McManus,
President of Marriage Savers and a syndicated columnist. For previous
columns go to
Search for any topic.
2019: Column 1965: Protecting Girls from Suicide
Eight Reasons To Marry
Ten Myths of Marriage
The Ministry of Marriage 911
The Message by Eugene Peterson
Green New Deal
Christian Persecution Rising Abroad
Gun Control Laws Needed
The Worst Valentine:
Pornography: A Public Health Hazard
Sextortion Kills Teens
Cohabitation: A Risky Business
same sex marriage,
abortion and infanticide,