The Colorado Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case against Christian cake baker Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who declined to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. This move sparked a lawsuit in 2012 that eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in 2018 that the state of Colorado was hostile to Phillips’ religious beliefs and that the government cannot force anyone to create custom works of art that communicate a message.
However, Phillips faced another lawsuit in 2018 when a transgender lawyer requested a cake celebrating a gender transition, which he declined. The lawyer accused Phillips of discrimination, leading to the recent decision by the Colorado Supreme Court to hear the case. Phillips expressed hope that this case will bring an end to the ongoing legal battle and stated that he serves everybody regardless of their background.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the legal organization defending Phillips, argues that the lawsuit was a set-up to target Phillips and his beliefs. During the trial phase, it was revealed that the lawyer had promised to request another cake and initiate another lawsuit if the current one was dismissed. Despite facing threats and being in court for over a decade, Phillips believes that the case has strengthened his faith.
Phillips emphasized that the case is not about the individuals involved but about his right to express his religious freedom without fear of punishment in the marketplace. He mentioned that a gay man had testified on his behalf, acknowledging that while he serves everyone, he cannot create every cake that people request.
Oral arguments for the case have yet to be scheduled but are likely to take place in the spring of next year. The ADF plans to argue that the previous Supreme Court ruling in Phillips’ favor and a recent ruling involving a website designer support Phillips’ right to decline creating a custom cake that goes against his beliefs.
This case highlights the ongoing debate regarding the balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. It raises questions about the extent to which individuals should be compelled to provide custom services that conflict with their deeply held beliefs. The outcome of this case could have significant implications for artists and business owners who face similar challenges in the future.
