Christian baker who refused to make a gay wedding cake cannot use his religious beliefs as a defense, court rules

  • Jack Philips refused to make wedding cake for gay couple back in 2012
  • Philips claimed that baking the cake would violate his religious freedom
  • However Colorado Court of Appeal today dismissed his argument
  • Philips' lawyers say he may make final appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court

A Christian baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage ceremony cannot use his religious beliefs as a defense, a court has ruled.

Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop near Denver, Colorado, was accused of discrimination after refusing to bake a wedding cake for David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012.

Philips said forcing him to make cakes for gay marriage ceremonies violated his right to freedom of speech and his religious freedoms, but today the Colorado Court of Appeals rejected his argument.

Jack Philips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop near Denver, Colorado, was taken to court in 2012 after refusing to make a gay marriage cake for husbands David Mullins and Charlie Craig

Jack Philips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop near Denver, Colorado, was taken to court in 2012 after refusing to make a gay marriage cake for husbands David Mullins and Charlie Craig

Philips tried to argue that being forced to make the cake was akin to being forced to support gay marriage, which violated his religious freedoms, but the Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed

Philips tried to argue that being forced to make the cake was akin to being forced to support gay marriage, which violated his religious freedoms, but the Colorado Court of Appeals disagreed

The three-judge panel said that refusing to bake a cake for Mullins and Craig clearly violated Colorado's anti-discrimination laws.

The judges said the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act (CADA) prohibits businesses from refusing services on offer to the general public to people based on religion, ethnicity, or sexual orientation.

Philips will now face a fine if he refuses to bake another one of the cakes, is required to train his staff in anti-discrimination law, and will need to submit a quarterly compliance survey.

The case began back in 2012 after Mullins and Craig had gone to Massachusetts to get married, as Colorado only permitted same-sex civil unions at the time.

Once they had returned to Colorado they planned to celebrate with family and friends, and ordered the cake from Philips.

Philips refused, and when he was taken to court, argued that wedding cakes inherently carry a celebratory message about gay marriage, and therefore baking one was akin to asking him to support gay marriage, which his religious beliefs forbid.

A panel of three judges ruled that Philips' actions had clearly broken anti-discrimination laws, while saying he cannot use his religious beliefs as a defense

A panel of three judges ruled that Philips' actions had clearly broken anti-discrimination laws, while saying he cannot use his religious beliefs as a defense

Philips now faces a fine if he refuses to serve any more gay couples, must train his staff in anti-discrimination laws, and must submit monthly compliance checks

Philips now faces a fine if he refuses to serve any more gay couples, must train his staff in anti-discrimination laws, and must submit monthly compliance checks

In 2013, Judge Robert N. Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts ruled that Philips had broken the law.

His decision was backed up by a similar ruling the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in May 2014. 

However, Philips appealed, and today the Court of Appeals delivered its verdict, agreeing that he had breached the law.

In their ruling, the judges said: 'Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece's providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado's public accommodations law.'

The judges said that Philips remains free to continue espousing his beliefs, both inside and outside the bakery, including opposition to gay marriage.

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer were awarded $135,000 after a bakery in their home state of Oregon refused to make them a gay marriage cake two years ago because of religious beliefs

Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer were awarded $135,000 after a bakery in their home state of Oregon refused to make them a gay marriage cake two years ago because of religious beliefs

Melissa and Aaron Klein, who owned bakery Sweet Cakes, say the fine will 'ruin' them as they have already been forced to close their bakery due to a public backlash at their decision

Melissa and Aaron Klein, who owned bakery Sweet Cakes, say the fine will 'ruin' them as they have already been forced to close their bakery due to a public backlash at their decision

'However, if [he] wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, CADA prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation,' the judges added.

Lawyers representing Philips said they had not ruled out taking their case to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that many more cases are likely to occur following a recent ruling that effectively legalized same-sex marriage. 

In recent cases elsewhere, a bakery in the Portland, Oregon, area that declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple two years ago was ordered to pay $135,000 in damages in July.

The owners of Sweet Cakes, Melissa and Aaron Klein, refused to make a cake for Rachel and Laurel Bowman-Cryer saying doing so would violate their religious freedom, but the argument was again rejected.

Two years ago, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a photographer who wouldn't take pictures of a gay couple's 2006 commitment ceremony violated the state's anti-discrimination law.

And in Washington state, a florist has been fighting a lawsuit filed after she refused to provide services for a gay wedding in 2013. 

 

The comments below have been moderated in advance.

The views expressed in the contents above are those of our users and do not necessarily reflect the views of MailOnline.

By posting your comment you agree to our house rules.

Who is this week's top commenter? Find out now