IMG_2865-800x600Denver, CO – Alliance Defending Freedom filed an appeal Friday on behalf of a Lakewood, Colo., cake artist who declined to use his creative talents to promote and endorse a same-sex wedding ceremony. In December, the Colorado Administrative Law Court ruled that the cake artist must create cakes for same-sex wedding ceremonies and then prove that he has complied with the coerced speech order.

“America was founded on the fundamental freedom of all citizens to live and work without fear of government punishment,” said lead counsel Nicolle Martin, one of nearly 2,300 attorneys allied with Alliance Defending Freedom. “Jack simply exercised the long-cherished freedom to not speak by declining to promote a false view of marriage through his creative work. It’s outrageous that the government would turn its guns on Jack and threaten him with a potential jail sentence unless he says and does what the government demands.”

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake to celebrate their same-sex ceremony. In an exchange lasting about 30 seconds, Phillips politely declined, explaining that he would gladly make them any other type of baked item they wanted but that he could not make a cake promoting a same-sex ceremony because of his faith. Craig and Mullins, now represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, immediately left the shop and later filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.

Alliance Defending Freedom’s  summary judgment brief filed in the case explains that “…the Government and Complainants seek to impose a new belief system upon Jack, one that is fundamentally at odds with his conscience and his liberty. Complainants and the Government want this Court to order Jack Phillips to cease and desist from holding views about marriage that they disagree with, and conform his conscience to their definition of marriage,” Moreover, “The Government is unconstitutionally attempting to force Jack to violate his sincerely held religious beliefs and to compel him to speak a message that is contrary to his actual beliefs.”

“Every artist must be free to create work that expresses what he or she believes and not be forced to express contrary views,” added Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner. “Forcing Americans to promote ideas against their will undermines our constitutionally protected freedom of expression and our right to live free. If the government can take away our First Amendment freedoms, there is nothing it can’t take away.”

19 comments
  1. God Bless this man for standing on his beliefs. These people are trying to force their lifestyle on everyone. If truth be known they probably did not want him to make them a cake, it was just a way to force this lawsuit.

  2. I assume Colorado has a civil rights law similar to Iowa. Under the law, you can’t discriminate.

    To call a cake decorator an artist seems to be a stretch, since he sells them so people can eat them..

  3. Jack should agree to bake the cake if he is given ‘artistic creativity’ – and is paid in advance. Then – bake a cake and include on the top some Biblical verses about Biblical Marriage being male and female. The customer gets a wedding cake – as the baker sees what a wedding cake is….

  4. Does this mean the churches are next? Pastors will have to “Marry” two men or two women, even if they do not qualify by not being church members, or the old qualification of being one man and one woman. Thousands of years of good sense and knowledge of anatomy isn’t enough to stop people from constantly messing everything up….

    1. In the Native American culture, homosexuality was not an issue, and they were here millennium before the Europeans came over.

      The people who have problems with homosexuality are those who follow the religions that came from Abraham: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. For being such a tolerant, loving, moral culture, these religions have quite a bit of blood on their hands throughout history; Thousands of years of simply putting homosexuals to death.

      1. I know some native Americans who would take issue with you Bruce. Now, since you like things cited. Cite please, where you came up with this info on native American culture. And here, I thought you would say Darwin was for homosexuality. All those experiments he did on pigeons and stuff, not one mention about the virtues of mating two male pigeons. It is kind of impossible to have a descent of man without people with different parts getting together. Isn’t Iowa known for crops? The birds and the bees and the flowers and the trees?

      2. My comment seems to have vanished from yesterday. I will try again by breaking it down into two.

        I was told about Native American’s stand on homosexuality from a member of the Sac & Fox Tribe. On wiki, it states that ‘male and female two-spirits have been documented in over 130 North America tribes, in every region of the continent’.

      3. I think someone is pulling your leg. How do you go from two different spirits-one male and one female separated, to homosexuality? What next, Native American fertility dances weren’t really for fertility?

      4. They believed that homosexuals were special because one person (whether gay or lesbian) were given both genders (two spirits). A man could take a “two-spirit” man as his spouse as well as a woman could be the spouse of a “two-spirit” woman.

      5. It takes two to tango, Bruce. If you create human life, it is for real, not some la-la land dream thing. A creation myth is not about homosexuality.

      6. I give up. It sends me to awaiting moderation then deletes every response about marriage being about procreation. It does show up in Disqus – just not here.

      7. People have been writing about marriage and pro-creation for thousands of years. It is and was, always the same thing. Pro-creation and what comes after can be ugly and violent, especially for the women and children involved. Our government decided to re-enforce the church in marriage, because it is to the benefit of society to have marriage between one man and one woman. You should be able to see that today, especially in the lives of the children of these unwed mothers. They are the ones who don’t do well in school, and are far more likely to be abused, and are far more likely to break the law.- Ever been to family court? – Homosexual love isn’t the same thing, and can’t be made the same even if it is made legal. During the process of growing up, some people are unable to mature as they should. There are over 900 paraphilias, and just because the APA has declassified three or four of them, doesn’t really change them into something equal to a completely mature relationship.

      8. As I wrote before, having children is not a requirement of marriage. Whether by choice or due to infertility, some couples never have kids. Are you implying theirs is not a valid marriage?

        I don’t see the connection between single unwed mothers and homosexual couples in this discussion. I will say that kids who grow up in a poverty / welfare environment will not do as well in life. Unfortunately, many single mothers live in poverty.

      9. Having children used to be a condition to being married. When people were past the age to have children, and their mate died, they generally didn’t remarry. When they were younger, they would remarry. The attack on marriage first started with the unwed mother stuff. The first book I saw on the subject was written in 1878, and was called “Love Child,” and it was written by a socialist, and was about the greatness of having a baby out of wedlock. Then, this idea was spread through our society. Then, in the 1950s the homosexuals decided they were going to change the attitudes of people. The ACT of homosexuality used to be considered immoral, illegal, and insane. and, that is what they had to change about it, and that is why they want marriage. To sign a marriage contract, you need to be considered moral, able to legally sign the contract, and fit the definition of sanity, otherwise it is void. So, the contract gives them, or so they think, these three things, but what is really does is weaken the law.

      10. Your only basis for homosexuality being immoral is your religion. In the U.S., you are free to hold that religious view but you are not free to force it upon someone else.

        Up until the last few hundred years, marriage was a transaction between two families where daughters were viewed as commodities used for trade.

      11. Yes, you do have to have morals to deem something immoral. Some things are supposed to be intolerable. However, if you are a Christian, God deems a thing immoral, it is not about a personal opinion. If it is written over 400 times in the Bible not to do something, even the slowest among us should finally get the picture. You enjoy having you non-moral views on all sorts of things. In this country, marriage as a contract between two families was never true, it was always the two individuals. We have records of this stuff. Read an old marriage license. They are available. Plus, the laws in this country made it illegal for a 20 something to have anything to do with a thirteen year old. And, fourteen was the age of consent, and still is in some states, with parent permission. Sixteen if the girl wanted to marry on her own. Where do you get your info? Illinois IRAD is a place online where some actual marriage records can be looked up.

      12. My example was based on many centuries before America was discovered. It has changed considerably these last 250 years or so. My point was to show that marriage does indeed change and I am sure there will always be those who are against change.

        As an example of change, fifty years ago, inter-racial marriages were considered taboo. There are those even today who don’t like when people of different races marry, but the majority of people no longer have an issue with it. You may continue to not like it, but even you should be able to see that gay-marriage is here to stay.

        People justified slavery using the Bible for years, but eventually true morality won out.

  5. Baking a cake does not endorse Marriage. I wonder if these bakers would also refuse a case for a pagan couple, or divorce / remarriage? My guess is “Yes we can” – proving that their position is anti-Gay, not pro-heterosexual marriage.

    1. When the Republicans (led by Kent Sorenson I believe) tried to overturn gay-marriage in Iowa back when they thought they had the votes to do it, not only did they try to ban gay-marriage, but also any gay unions that would give legal rights to homosexual couples. Clearly, it wasn’t just about traditional marriage.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

SBA List Denounces Obama Administration Opposition to Sotomayor Injunction for Nuns

Washington, DC – Susan B. Anthony List (SBA List) President Marjorie Dannenfelser…