4 ms·

Incorrect. The gay couple did not even detail the cake’s design. They said they wanted a cake for “our wedding,” and since Jack Phillips believed homosexuality

Incorrect. The gay couple did not even detail the cake’s design. They said they wanted a cake for “our wedding,” and since Jack Phillips believed homosexuality was a sin, he thought providing any kind of wedding cake would violate his freedom of religion. He did tell them they could get other kinds of cakes, just not a wedding cake, and that includes plain wedding cakes. Phillips even said, “I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.” (Notice the lack of nuance: he wouldn’t make any cake, whether it’s plain or designed.) You can read more in the opinion of the Supreme Court [1], page 4 (7 on your document viewer). [1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf P.S. A good argument can be made that the Colorado Commission didn’t violate religious neutrality. As Ginsburg outlined in her dissent, Phillips wouldn’t make a wedding cake for any gay couple. So there is a subset of people he discriminates against just because of who they are (gay couples), and another he doesn’t discriminate against. The other bakeries involved that rejected William Jack’s request to make cakes depicting homosexuality as a sin wouldn’t make such a cake for anybody. To make it easier to understand: Jack Phillips makes plain cakes he gives to one group of people but not another. On the other hand, the other bakeries wouldn’t even make a cake depicting homosexuality as a sin for anyone. So it wouldn’t matter if it’s an atheist or Christian or Muslim. Plus, the very same bakeries made cakes for other Christians and decorated beautiful Bibles, so it’s clear they didn’t find someone’s religion a reason to deny them a cake. Phillip’s argument might be more convincing if he was asked to, say, design a wedding cake with a rainbow flag. But the gay couple were refused a plain, let alone designed, wedding cake.

whiddershins 5y ago
He wouldn’t have sold a cake for a gay wedding to a heterosexual couple. So therefore he is not discriminating against the customer, but rather the stated purpose of using the cake.
- orlandobriskies 5y ago
  Phillips is by definition discriminating, since he makes something (a plain wedding cake) he gives to some people but not others, all because they’re gay. He himself admitted he wouldn’t make wedding cakes of any kind for same-sex weddings. Having intermediaries in the middle is a moot point. If anything, it makes for a stronger case that Phillips also excludes heterosexual people from buying cakes if their purpose is to give it to a homosexual couple for their wedding. (Also, a better comparison would be between the gay couple who visited Phillips’ bakery vs William Jack who visited the other bakeries, since there were no intermediaries here.) As Alfredo said, this isn’t a cake with a rainbow flag; only a plain wedding cake you might find at your local cakery. The other bakeries wouldn’t make a cake containing hateful messages for anybody, so they can’t be discriminating (unless you argue not offering something to all people is discrimination). The difference is that Phillips finds a certain class of people who do weddings sinful and so wouldn’t make the same cake (he sells to others) to them, while the other bakeries find the message of “homosexuality bad” abhorrent and wouldn’t sell a cake with such messages to anybody; they wouldn’t even think of making it.

whiddershins 5y ago

He wouldn’t have sold a cake for a gay wedding to a heterosexual couple. So therefore he is not discriminating against the customer, but rather the stated purpose of using the cake.

orlandobriskies 5y ago
Phillips is by definition discriminating, since he makes something (a plain wedding cake) he gives to some people but not others, all because they’re gay. He himself admitted he wouldn’t make wedding cakes of any kind for same-sex weddings. Having intermediaries in the middle is a moot point. If anything, it makes for a stronger case that Phillips also excludes heterosexual people from buying cakes if their purpose is to give it to a homosexual couple for their wedding. (Also, a better comparison would be between the gay couple who visited Phillips’ bakery vs William Jack who visited the other bakeries, since there were no intermediaries here.) As Alfredo said, this isn’t a cake with a rainbow flag; only a plain wedding cake you might find at your local cakery. The other bakeries wouldn’t make a cake containing hateful messages for anybody, so they can’t be discriminating (unless you argue not offering something to all people is discrimination). The difference is that Phillips finds a certain class of people who do weddings sinful and so wouldn’t make the same cake (he sells to others) to them, while the other bakeries find the message of “homosexuality bad” abhorrent and wouldn’t sell a cake with such messages to anybody; they wouldn’t even think of making it.