Cake artist Jack Phillips, proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop. (Photo Credit: Alliance Defending Freedom | http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/10310)

December 5, 2017

Reactions to Masterpiece Cakeshop Oral Arguments at SCOTUS

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments today in a case that could shape the landscape of religious freedom in America for years to come. Attorneys argued before a divided court in the highly anticipated case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The legal battle, which began back in 2012, pits Christian cake artist Jack Phillips against Colorado officials who demand that Phillips employ his artistic talents to create unique wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies.

Christian legal organization Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) argued on behalf of Phillips. In a press conference hosted by ADF following the arguments, Phillips said he hoped the Supreme Court would “affirm the freedom of artists to peacefully express themselves in ways consistent with who they are.”

While many people of faith supported Phillips, others vocally opposed his constitutional rights. Religious progressives submitted a brief explicitly asking the Supreme Court to reject his “First Amendment-premised exemption” to Colorado state regulations requiring businesses to participate in same-sex weddings.

Phillips pushed back against this demand in an op-ed published by USA Today on December 4, one day ahead of oral arguments. He asked his opponents “grant me a certain measure of respect” by allowing him to practice his faith in accordance with his rights as an American citizen.

“The First Amendment defends my right to create custom cake art that is consistent with my faith, while declining requests that ask me to celebrate events or messages that conflict with my faith,” Phillips wrote.

Not surprisingly, but disappointingly, the Editorial Board at USA Today published their own editorial on the same day flatly contradicting Phillips’ claim and denying that the Constitution protected him in this situation. “While the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of religion and expression are both fundamental rights, neither is unlimited,” the Editorial Board argued.

Plenty of others on both sides of the debate took to social media today. Here are just a few reactions to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case arriving at the Supreme Court today.


9 Responses to Reactions to Masterpiece Cakeshop Oral Arguments at SCOTUS

  1. Brian says:

    It always amazes me how in the name of “equality” people can discriminate against people of faith. It also amazes me that in the name of “equality” people justify their sick, immoral & perverted behavior. Say what you want, but it’s the gays and all the other sickos who preach tolerance, but are the most intolerant in the world. Sick, perverted lifestyles do not deserve equality, they need therapy. ( this oughta ruffle a few feathers!)

  2. Dan Waller says:

    Thank you for the very well written story on this landmark case. The social media quotes drive home the depth of the Country’s divide. I was completely blown away by the post from ERLC on the importance of freedom of conscience. I realize common sense is in short supply these days, but I think rights of same sex couples can be protected without obliterating freedom of conscience and religious liberty. (Also I was surprised Rep. Hank Johnson D GA wasn’t concerned a cake with two groom statues might tip over.)

  3. William says:

    Stalin killed 20 million of his own countrymen who tried to exercise their conscience objections to communism, many on religious grounds. Of course the Soviet Union had no such thing as our First Amendment. Given totalitarian authority, this LGBTQ movement in the USA would not hesitate to use whatever means necessary to bring all in conformity with their beliefs. Will the Supreme Court start us down that road by ruling in favor of Colorado by greatly weakening of significantly altering the First Amendment? Many Americans have no clue how dangerous such a ruling would be. We must pray that the Supreme Court recognizes the abject pearls of such a ruling.

    • Dan Waller says:

      William, It’s not the LGBTQ movement that is seeking totalitarian authority, it is the Government – local, State and Federal. I don’t fear rights for same sex couples. I fear the Government that uses these issues to restrict the liberties of all citizens.

  4. William says:

    Dan, in your earlier post, you suggest that civil rights of same sex couples can be protected without obliterating freedom of conscience and religious liberty. If that would have been the situation here, then there would be no such case as this before the Supreme Court. This gay couple would have found another baker, got their cake decorated to their tastes, and respected Mr. Phillips’ right to his religious beliefs. But no, Mr. Phillips was targeted by LGBT activists, set up, and consequently hauled before the Colorado Commission because there was never any intention or attempt to respect his religious beliefs —— only a display of abject hatred of him because his beliefs conflicted with theirs. This case demonstrates that the Supreme Court decision legalizing same sex marriage was not enough for the gay movement. Now they’re going after the conscience beliefs of those who do not agree with that decision — and, I’ll say it again, there is not much that they would not stop at in order to deny those with religious objections to same sex marriage that First Amendment freedom to do so. This case is clear proof of that.

    • Jim says:

      William you are absolutely right about this. I wonder if Rep. Johnson would feel the same if the cake shop owners denied to provide a cake for the celebration of the Grand Dragon of the Ku Klux Klan’s installation dinner.

    • Dan Waller says:

      William, by civil rights I don’t mean wedding cakes or flowers. I am referring to equal protection under the law. Inheritance law, child custody law, all of the legal rights heterosexual couples have. Can I judge one couple to be more “moral” than another because one is heterosexual and the other homosexual? Jesus instructs us not to judge others.

      • William says:

        Dan, and Jesus also highlighted, held high God’s created order for marriage as that between a man and a woman as recorded in Matthew and Mark. That’s what Mr Phillips believes because his Lord said so. Those same-sex marriage advocates using this as a civil rights issue, which it is not, have demanded that Mr Phillips deny his Lord or have the state compel him to deny his Lord.

  5. To put the ultimate moral say for 325 million people in the hands of a 5 to 4 majority of fickle finite Supreme Court Justices who were not appointed based upon biblical qualifications – now *that’s* not just stupid, it’s insane. But that’s what America was given by the alleged brilliant constitutional framers.

    “…’There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one.’ Alexis de Tocqueville12

    “The Supreme Court, composed of one chief justice and eight associate justices, with its power to not only judge the facts of any case but also to interpret, judge, and overrule any “law” passed by Congress (what Dr. Gary North described as “retroactive legitimacy to legislation”13 ), makes the Supreme Court the powerhouse or “big god” of this polytheistic system. Luther Martin, attorney-general of Maryland and one of Maryland’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, pointed out that the Supreme Court ultimately negates the jury system:….

    “The power of the people of the United States of America and their representatives is subject to the Judicial Branch, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which is essentially immune from any kind of censure. The real power or sovereignty of the United States Constitutional Republic resides in a Biblically unqualified and nearly always Biblically adverse five to four majority. The United States government is ultimately under the control and direction of five lawyers. And why not? In 1787, it was predominately lawyers (thirty-four of the fifty-five delegates were lawyers) who framed the Constitution and gave ultimate power into the hands of their own trade….

    “North observes that “political conservatives cry out against the concentration of power in the hands of the Supreme Court.”16 But this is only because the Supreme Court’s rulings are predisposed toward liberals. If it were otherwise, political conservatives would have no objections against this concentration of power….”

    For more, see Chapter 6 “Article 3: Judicial Usurpation” of free online book “Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective” at http://www.bibleversusconstitution.org/BlvcOnline/biblelaw-constitutionalism-pt6.html.

    Then find out how much you really know about the Constitution as compared to the Bible. Take our 10-question Constitution Survey in the right-hand sidebar and receive a complimentary copy of a book that examines the Constitution by the Bible.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *