There are too many misconceptions being propagated about the Supreme Court case involving Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. It’s time to set the record straight. Stay tuned to BreakPoint.
On Dec 5, the Supreme Court will hear verbal arguments in Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—which could be one of the many poignant cases in the nation’s story involving leisure of debate and leisure of religion.
If your only source of information were mainstream media outlets, you’ve substantially listened the case described along these lines: hiding behind a presumable explain to eremite freedom, anti-gay baker Jack Phillips refused to offer a same-sex couple in his store. The couple reported this horrible taste to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which rightly fined Phillips.
There’s only one problem with this outline of what happened. It’s hogwash.
Here’s what you need to know about Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop—what you need to know and tell your friends, family, and co-workers when the subject comes up.
First, Jack is a cake artist, something that’s turn some-more famous given reality radio shows like “Cake Wars.” He doesn’t just bake cakes; he tradition designs master cakes. However, from the commencement Jack has seen his business as an countenance of his faith (hence the name), and that has led him to reject business via his career. For example, he’s refused to make tradition cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, and he’s incited down requests for licentious cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties.
Back in 2012, two men asked Jack to pattern a cake for their same-sex wedding. Now mind you, back in 2012, the state of Colorado didn’t even commend same-sex weddings. Jack told them that he would gladly sell them any object in the store—including cakes—but that he could not, due to his eremite convictions, use his cake-design talents to attend in the jubilee of their ceremony.
The couple left fuming. Vile phone calls started pouring in—even death threats. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission not only fined Jack, but systematic that if he done tradition marriage cakes for heterosexual couples, he also had to do it for same-sex couples. Then the Commission—behaving like some comrade persecution might—ordered Jack and his employees to go by a “re-education” program and yield quarterly correspondence reports.
Obviously Jack appealed, and his case has done it to the Supreme Court. Jack has stopped selling marriage cakes, and has lost 40 percent of his business, and has had to lay off employees.
Now those are the facts. You can find them at ADFLegal.org—the website of the Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Jack.
Nonetheless, the media, the LGBTQ lobby, the ACLU, and even members of Congress continue to falsify the case and allegation Jack Phillips.
At a new press briefing, Maryland Congressman Stenny Hoyer told the cameras, “We’re better than exclusion, we’re better than hate, we’re better than prejudice. We honour any and every one of the associate citizens.”
Well, any and every citizen except, we suppose, Jack Phillips.
The magnanimous website ThinkProgress (which by the way calls the Alliance Defending Freedom an “anti-LGBTQ hatred group”) wrote that Phillips refused to sell the happy couple “any product.”
That’s simply not true. He offering them anything in the shop that was already made.
I could go on and on with the misrepresentations—and the omissions. But the contribution are Jack was not singling out happy customers. He simply refuses to use his artistic talent in a way that would violate his core convictions.
Today on the BreakPoint podcast, you can hear Jack’s profession Kristen Waggoner and the Heritage Foundation’s Ryan Anderson report the sum and stress of this case, and how you can support Jack Phillips. Come to BreakPoint.org to find it.
Get the Facts about Jack (Phillips, that Is): The Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop
Click here to listen to today’s podcast to know the facts, and the implications, of Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Jack Phillips’ case that will be listened by the Supreme Court next month.