CO Goes After Baker Jack Phillips Once Again

In June, Colorado baker Jack Phillips of the Masterpiece Cakeshop won a landmark victory when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that Jack could not be forced to violate his deeply held religious convictions.

In 2012 Jack Phillips declined a request to bake a custom cake for a same-sex ceremony. Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission targeted Masterpiece Cakeshop under the state’s anti-discrimination law. After six years of litigation and court hearings, Jack finally won his case this summer.

In its ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court chastised Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission for its obvious hostility toward Jack Phillips.

The story should have ended with a Supreme Court victory for Masterpiece Cakeshop. Instead, the Civil Rights Commission is after Jack Phillips again — this time for declining to bake a cake for a gender-transition celebration.

Our friends at the Colson Center for Christian Worldview write,

About a year ago, a caller to Jack’s store asked Jack to bake a cake celebrating a gender transition. To be blunt, it was an obvious set-up.

For starters, the request came in hours after it was reported that the Supreme Court would hear Jack’s case. Jack’s wife, who answered the phone, was asked for a cake with blue on the outside and pink on the inside, to represent the caller’s transition from male to female. When Mrs. Phillips politely told the caller that her husband didn’t make custom cakes for that kind of event, she was asked to repeat herself so that someone else could hear.

The “charging party” called again and this time an employee answered the phone and politely explained the shop’s policy. After berating her about the policy, the “charging party” hung up.

At no time did anyone in the Phillips family ask the caller about any personal characteristics, such as sex or gender identity. The only thing they knew about the caller was the request itself.

But that didn’t matter. About a month later Phillips received a copy of a complaint charging him with discriminating on the basis of gender identity.

Attorneys at Alliance Defending Freedom are once again standing beside Jack Phillips, writing,

Enough is enough. Alliance Defending Freedom is “going on offense” and suing the state of Colorado on Jack’s behalf for its blatant targeting of him.

You would think that a clear Supreme Court decision against their first effort would give them pause. But it seems like some in the state government are hell-bent on punishing Jack for living according to his faith.

If that isn’t hostility, what is?

Photo Credit: Olivier Douliery/Abaca Press/Newscom

MO Democrats Remove Platform Plank Welcoming Pro-Life Candidates

Last June the Missouri Democratic Party created controversy when it added a simple plank to its proposed platform reading,

We respect the conscience of each Missourian and recognize that members of our party have deeply held and sometimes differing positions on issues of personal conscience, such as abortion. We recognize the diversity of views as a source of strength, and welcome into our ranks all Missourians who may hold differing positions on this issue.

The language reportedly was proposed to court pro-life candidates who feel at odds with the Democratic Party’s increasingly pro-abortion rhetoric.

In a nutshell, placing this provision in the platform would have made it possible for Missouri Democrats to respectfully disagree on abortion; some would be free to support it while others would be free to oppose it.

However, on Saturday the party removed the plank from its final platform, substituting a pro-abortion statement, reading,

We support: . . . A woman’s right to choose and the right of every person to their own bodily autonomy and to be free from government intrusion in medical decisions, including a decision to carry a pregnancy to term, and oppose any efforts to limit access to reproductive healthcare.

The very next statement in the platform says the party supports “a requirement that all Crisis Pregnancy Centers be obligated to provide medically accurate information and be ineligible for state funding if medical professionals are not employed.” The language presumably was prompted by the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in favor of pro-life pregnancy resource centers that offer pregnancy tests, ultrasounds, adoption referrals, and other services free of charge.

In Arkansas, the Democratic Party’s draft platform for 2018-2020 reads,

We reaffirm the constitutionally established right of privacy and choice. We pledge to defend the rights laid out in Roe v. Wade. We trust women to make their own decisions about their bodies and their health care.

If adopted, this would expand the party’s current platform regarding abortion, which says, “We reaffirm the constitutionally established right of privacy and choice.” The U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade abortion decision hinged on the court finding an unwritten right to privacy and choice in the U.S. Constitution, so reaffirming the “right of privacy and choice” indirectly reaffirms Roe v. Wade.

It’s odd that these groups seem to be doubling down in support of abortion and flawed supreme court decisions like Roe v. Wade. Recent public opinion polling shows most Americans think abortion ought to be illegal in some or all cases, and the majority (62%) oppose paying for abortions with taxpayer dollars.

In Arkansas, 79% of those surveyed last year said abortion ought to be completely illegal or legal only under certain circumstances.

Abortion is a national tragedy that has claimed the lives of more than 60 million unborn children in the U.S. since 1973 — including 225,000 Arkansans. It’s high time our nation defended the sanctity of innocent human life from conception until natural death.

Photo Credit: Bev Sykes from Davis, CA, USA (Flickr) [CC BY 2.0 (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0)], via Wikimedia Commons.