Bad Day for Gay Fascism at the Supreme Court

With as clueless as Justice Kennedy is, there's reason to hope for the best in this clear case of conscience rights.

It wasn’t a good day for the 21st century phenomenon of gay fascism. That seems to be the consensus of Supreme Court watchers after yesterday’s oral arguments over whether or not the state of Colorado could compel individual businessmen and women into acts that violate their conscience in the name of non-discrimination.

A brief synopsis of the case:

  • Jack Phillips owns and operates Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado.
  • Colorado has a statute that prohibits businesses from discriminating against a person based on sexual orientation.
  • Jack Phillips does not violate that statute, freely serving all people who come into his store.
  • But Jack Phillips does have specific standards he won’t violate for the messaging he puts on cakes.
  • He won’t customize cakes for bachelor and bachelorette parties (heterosexual).
  • He won’t customize cakes for 2nd marriages following divorce (heterosexual).
  • He won’t customize cakes for explicitly “gay” weddings.
  • A gay couple came to Masterpiece not looking to buy a cake for a wedding – something Jack Phillips would have provided – but looking for a customized cake celebrating their explicitly “gay” wedding.
  • Fairly applying the same standards for customization he applies to other “straight” requests, Phillips declined.

The gay couple, with the assistance of the state of Colorado is seeking to destroy him professionally, financially, and personally. The gun of government is pointed at Phillips telling him not just that he will “bake the cake” (something he was already willing to do), but that he will “bake the cake and write whatever message the couple requests on that cake.”

This horrific violation of conscience rights has implications for all of us, including ironically the gay couple themselves. Remember it was just last month when a pro-family organization held a rally and asked the local OfficeMax to print their posters. Here’s what happened:

Rob Pue asked the Marshfield Wisconsin OfficeMax to print posters for an event titled, “The Homosexual Agenda Exposed.” An employee told him his posters would be printed by 10 am the next day. However, the next day Pue received an email from the store manager saying they would not print the posters because the company prohibited the contents of the poster.

Suppose this gay couple seeking to force Phillips to customize a cake celebrating their relationship opens up a cake shop of their own. Should they be forced by the state to customize a cake for a ceremony that undermines the legitimacy of their relationship? Cut the Cake, a pro-LGBT bakery in Florida was recently outed as discriminating against Christian requests to decorate a “We don’t support gay marriage” cake. The same thing happened at Denver’s Azucar Bakery last year.

These types of obvious inconsistencies is surely what prompted Justice Anthony Kennedy, the man who literally wrote the book on gay marriage in America by authoring the landmark Obergefell decision, made this pointed statement during the Masterpiece oral arguments yesterday:

Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs.

This statement seemed to strike fear into the hearts of those associated with gay fascism (remember, that’s a fairly small but very vocal group of those who consider themselves homosexual). The “Justice Editor” at Think Progress, Ian Millhiser, lamented:

Leaving SCOTUS now. Terrible argument for pro-equality side. Kennedy all but sure to side with anti-gay baker.

Got that? If you have no issues serving “gays” right alongside everyone else but merely ask not to be forced by the gun of government to customize a message that violates your conscience, you are “anti-gay” and shouldn’t be allowed to have a business. If that seems an overreach, here was the startling exchange Millhiser’s hero Justice Sonia Sotomayor had with Phillips’ attorney:

(Attorney Waggoner) "Justice Sotomayor, I think that the gravest offense to the First Amendment would be to compel a person who believes that marriage is sacred, to give voice to a different view of marriage and require them to celebrate that marriage. The First Amendment –" (Justice Sotomayor interrupting) "Then don't participate in weddings."

The government will determine your speech and if you resist, it will prevent you from living your dream.

That isn’t honest, it isn’t tolerant, it isn’t respectful, and it isn’t constitutional. With as clueless as Justice Anthony Kennedy has repeatedly proven himself to be throughout his Supreme Court career, let’s hope he at least gets that right.

No. 1-5

@Contemplator : With respect it is exactly like denying them service because they're black. A couple came to him to purchase a service. One he apparently regularly performs for couples who are being married. Yet he refused to perform it because of their sexual orientation. He denied them that service. That he'd sell them cakes for other occasions doesn't alleviate or change that. Or are you saying forcing Blacks to sit in the back of the bus is fine and isn't discriminatory because "hey they got to ride the bus didn't they"? Again I"m not saying Jack Philip should bake a cake for any event or anyone he disagrees with. I think that should be his right to do whatever he likes with his labor. The problem is many of the people decrying "Gay Fascism" don't actually agree with that. They accept, even applaud, the government stepping and and telling me how to run my business, who I can serve and how, and only get upset when they are being compelled to do something against their wishes.


Jack, this may help. "Outside the Supreme Court, Jack explained, 'Though I serve everyone who comes into my shop, like many other creative professionals, I don't create custom designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience... I am here at the Supreme Court today because I respectfully declined to create a custom cake that would celebrate a view of marriage in direct conflict with my faith's core teachings on marriage. I offered to sell the two gentlemen suing me anything else in my shop or to design a cake for them for another occasion.' It's hard to believe, he went on, 'that the government is forcing me to choose between providing for my family and employees and violating my relationship with God. That is not freedom. That is not tolerance.' " Phillips did not discriminate against them because they're homosexual; he turned down their order for a creative work celebrating an event he coundn't in good conscience support. He would have made them a birthday or graduation cake no problem. So it's not like denying service because they're black.


Jack, this may help:


Look I don't think anyone should be compelled to provide services against their wishes. But I fail to see how not making the cake a couple wants purely because they are homosexual isn't discriminating against them simply because he discriminates against other groups as well. What's exactly the difference compared to if I decided not to make customized cakes for a couple because they were black?


Just because Kennedy said the right thing at oral argument, don’t assume that he—or Roberts for that matter—will vote the right way. They have flipped before.