OPINION - EDITORIAL

Stunned, indeed

Colorado baker back in the news

Maybe we should give Gentle Reader a refresher, or at least a brief summation. For there are still too many myths hovering around the "Colorado baker case."

Here are the facts, as reported many times in the public prints, if not on the cable shows:

Back in 2012, a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., to order a cake for their wedding reception. The owner of the shop, Jack Phillips, said he couldn't make a cake for them, because a same-sex wedding violated his religious beliefs. (And, at the time, state law.)

But, he added, the couple could buy anything on the shelf--anything available to the public. He wouldn't specifically use his baking skills, however--his art--in a kind of participation in their wedding. The couple sued. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was called in to rule on the matter. Said commission didn't just rule in favor of the gay couple, but in its public statements treated the baker and his religious beliefs in a disparaging manner.

In fact, at one very public meeting, a commissioner said this, for the record: "Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust, whether it be--I mean, we--we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to--to use their religion to hurt others."

Slavery and the Holocaust. Well.

The commission ordered up a cake. And for good measure ordered the baker, Jack Phillips, into remedial education, including "comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section" of [the law] "and changes to any and all company policies to comply with . . . this Order." The commission additionally required Phillips to prepare "quarterly compliance reports" for a period of two years documenting "the number of patrons denied service" and why, along with "a statement describing the remedial actions taken."

Eventually the case made its way to the United States Supreme Court. And, as the court does at most opportunities, it punted. It didn't rule on whether this case violated the civil rights of the couple or the religious rights of the baker. Instead, in a 7-2 ruling, the nation's top court said the commission was at fault for insulting the baker's religion, and should have granted him the basic right of neutrality that the commission should have used in deliberations. The Supreme Court, some say, ruled in favor of the baker.

Call it a 20-yard punt, a shank off the side of the foot. Everybody's still waiting on another case. And another similar case might take years to wend its way up the chain. Perhaps the Supreme Court will have a backbone by then.

That's where the matter stood a few weeks ago.

Until Mr. Phillips was targeted again.

On one fine June day last year, a transgender woman called Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, Prop., to ask for a gender transition cake. The baker refused. Colorado's civil rights division found "probable cause" that the law required Mr. Phillips to make a cake. Now Mr. Phillips is back in court again, suing the state government.

The customer involved, Autumn Scardina, tells the papers: "The woman on the phone did not object to my request for a birthday cake until I told her I was celebrating my transition. I was stunned."

Stunned? Ms. Scardina called the bakery days after the Supreme Court took Mr. Phillips' case. It was in all the papers. Surely she knew there was a Christian running the shop. And knew what the answer to her request would be. One might think, perhaps, that Autumn Scardina is too easily stunned if this surprised her.

One might also think, perhaps, that there are many other bakeries in the greater Denver area that could provide any kind of cake to a transgender person. But that Mr. Phillips' shop is being targeted. As is his religion.

It seems that Jack Phillips has to fight government hostility every time he opens his bakery in the mornings. And would-be aggrieved parties are circling like sharks, perhaps one day lending their names to a notable legal ruling and the history books. Wouldn't that be neat?

One hopes that if the Supreme Court ever gets this baker in its court again, it will rule, once and for all ... in some manner. And put a stop to the harassment. One would hope the highest court in a nation founded on liberty would rule in favor of religious freedom. But, either way, it should make a more definitive ruling.

Now that would be stunning.

Editorial on 08/21/2018

Upcoming Events