Half-Baked Complaint Alleges Discrimination Where There is None

When Christian educator Bill Jack ordered a cake last year from Azucar, a Denver bakery, he had a special decoration request for owner Marjorie Silva. He wanted the cake to say "God Hates Gays" with a drawing to match. Silva refused, and now she's facing a half-baked complaint from Jack alleging he was the victim of religious discrimination.

Jack and others are touting this as equivalent to what happened at Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012, and they are pointing to both cases as reasons to support laws allowing businesses to discriminate against gay couples. As you have likely heard by now, Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips turned away gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from shopping for wedding cakes, citing his faith as the reason. The couple filed a discrimination complaint and the ACLU stepped in to represent them. An administrative judge and then the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that yes, they had suffered illegal discrimination. Masterpiece and Phillips are now appealing that decision.

It's true that both stories lend themselves to headlines including the words "gay," "Christian," and "discrimination," not to mention the very popular word "cake." But these situations are quite different when you look beyond the headlines.

Silva made a good-faith effort to work with Jack when he presented himself as a customer. She had no problem with making a cake in the shape of a Bible, even offering to make him a blank one and provide the DIY decorating tools he would need to add the words and images that he was asking for. It's not as though she was trying to offer a different, less extensive menu to Christian customers. Phillips, on the other hand, was unwilling to even talk about design options with Craig and Mullins. Jack said he would make them a birthday cake or some brownies, but the wedding cake they came in for? No dice.

Further, Silva declined to fulfill a cake "order" because the order went beyond her standards of offensiveness. Her issue was with the design, not who was trying to order it or what they planned to do with it. And nondiscrimination laws have nothing to say about business owners' standards of taste, as long as they apply across the board to all customers.

Phillips, on the other hand, freely admits that it was Masterpiece Cakeshop's long-standing policy to sell wedding cakes for opposite-sex couples and refuse to sell them for same-sex couples. Craig and Mullins did not even get to explain to Phillips what their dream wedding cake might have looked like before he rejected their business. Thus, Phillips has been found in violation of Colorado law and ordered to end his previous practice of sexual orientation discrimination, but it's highly unlikely the complaint against Silva will go anywhere since he wasn't turned away because of who he is.

Businesses often have standards and policies related to the products they will stock, the services they will provide, or the orders they will fill, and nothing in Colorado law prohibits that. But setting a storewide neutral policy that applies to all customers is very different from refusing service because of who the customer is. And that crucial difference is why Jack's new claim of "discrimination" shouldn't lead anyone to support a law that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay customers.

Learn more about religious discrimination and other civil liberty issues: Sign up for breaking news alertsfollow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook.

View comments (20)
Read the Terms of Use

Anonymous

Great explanation, Amanda! Thank you!

Anonymous

I'm very concerned about why he chose to target this bakery in Denver, when he lives all the way down in Castle Rock. He really had to go out of his way to get there. Also, Azucar (Spanish for sugar) is owned by a Hispanic woman. Someone needs to find out why he decided to this at this particular bakery.

Anonymous

This is just a way to introduce laws that allow discrimination in Colorado. Gordon Klingenschmitt, has sided with Silva's bakery on this, saying he will introduce a bill that will allow business to discriminate...

"Klingenschmitt said the discrimination law allows the state to interfere with First Amendment rights, and he’s drafting a bill that would “repair an existing flaw” in the state’s anti-discrimination statutes. These laws have no religious or free speech exemptions,” Klingenschmitt said. “So right now there’s a loophole that’s allowing these bakers to be brought up on charges of discrimination. I think the loophole ought to be fixed so that every baker, every artist, every person in Colorado is not compelled by the government to produced anything they personally disagree with.” -Rawstory.

Well played sir, well played.....

Anonymous

This shows the hypocrisy of the radical left. The Aclu will never defend anyone of the Christian faith but they will defend anyone who is against it.

The Aclu shows itself to be nothing but liberals masquerading as defenders of free speech.

Anonymous

Exactly.

Anonymous

If she had agreed to make the cake, by the very quote, "God Hates Gays", then it would have made her an accomplise in a "Hate Crimes". Check the statue, it is written, as such.

Anonymous

"Further, Silva declined to fulfill a cake 'order' because the order went beyond her standards of offensiveness. Her issue was with the design, not who was trying to order it or what they planned to do with it. And nondiscrimination laws have nothing to say about business owners' standards of taste, as long as they apply across the board to all customers."

I think this is actually an extremely hard issue to deal with. Hypothetically, the owner could say that his standards of taste would not allow homosexuality to be portrayed in any way by his products. So, then you could say that there are laws which make homosexuals a protected class. But then you can say there are also laws which make religious groups a protected class. So, I'm not sure how you actually distinguish between the two in terms of something like this.

Anonymous

"The worst see the Bible as a sword to strike down whomever they want. Others think it's a shield to hide them from a world they don't understand. The best of us know it is a lamp intended to guide one's own footsteps --a light shared freely with those close, and a beacon to others. The first two can only stumble around in their own darkness. But the enlightened see their path clearly and they will always travel in good company."

Anonymous

"The worst see the Bible as a sword to strike down whomever they want. Others think it's a shield to hide them from a world they don't understand. The best of us know it is a lamp intended to guide one's own footsteps --a light shared freely with those close, and a beacon to others. The first two can only stumble around in their own darkness. But the enlightened see their path clearly and they will always travel in good company."

RRR

The biggest difference is that they were Christians which the ACLU hate!

Pages

Stay Informed