August 20, 2018

Jack Phillips Back in Court

We're officially on Insta! Did I throw on a blazer at 5 am for all you lovely people? You bet I did!

, his attorneys said Wednesday.” (AP News)

Both sides agree that given the current Supreme Court Phillips’s prospects in a future case are favorable.

See past issues

The left is concerned that a ruling in Jack Phillips’s favor would open the floodgates to all kinds of discrimination.

“It would be a different story if Sardina had also requested that Jack Phillips write ‘Happy Gender Transition Day!’ because the government can’t compel a business owner to engage in speech he finds objectionable. But the simple act of creating a blue-pink cake doesn’t send any message at all... If a business owner can refuse to serve one customer the exact same product that he’d willingly sell another based on an objection to the use to which the product would be put, we might just as well admit that anti-discrimination laws are toothless.”


What if a mother of a transgender girl ordered a cake that said ‘Happy Birthday, My Beautiful Daughter’ or the wife of a transgender man requested a cake bearing the message ‘Happy Anniversary to My Husband’? Would that not violate the baker’s religious belief that one’s birth-assigned sex can never be changed—even though the cakes themselves are not directly celebrating a transition?”

Daily Beast

If a customer can buy a product, but only if they hide their identity, then the business is clearly discriminating on the basis of that identity.”


“The Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group representing Phillips, has waged war in the courts for business owners to deny services that communicate messages in conflict with their sincerely held religious beliefs. While their arguments have been anchored around refusing service to LGBT people or denying contraception coverage to women, their broader arguments raise concerns from critics they will rip loopholes into nondiscrimination policies across the board, potentially opening the door to racial discrimination in the name of religion, for example.”


“Phillips won his Supreme Court case earlier this year dealing with another instance, from 2012, in which he and Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception. But the [7-2] ruling in that case was narrow; rather than deciding that Phillips’s religious beliefs empowered him to bypass Colorado anti-discrimination law and discriminate against gay people, the ruling focused on how the Colorado government had treated Phillips — unfairly, in the Supreme Court justices’ view.”


“In theory, there’s no reason why a bad businessman can’t go on to become a good president. But a commander-in-chief whose signature legislative achievement expanded tax loopholes that he himself describes as grossly unfair is pretty much a bad president, by definition.”
Eric Levitz, New York Magazine

The right supports Phillips, arguing that he is being targeted for his sincerely held religious beliefs.

The right supports Phillips, arguing that he is being targeted for his sincerely held religious beliefs.

“Neither Phillips nor his staff ask customers about their sex, gender identity, or other such characteristics... because it doesn’t matter. What matters to Phillips is the message that the cake will express or the event that it will celebrate... Our society values tolerance, and that tolerance should apply to people of faith — even if the government dislikes their religious beliefs or practices.”

Denver Post

Some believe the request was made in bad faith: “The timing of the request from the transgender attorney just so happens to be the very same day the Supreme Court agreed to hear the Masterpiece case—June 26, 2017. Coincidence? No way.”

Washington Examiner

“To pursue Mr. Phillips so quickly, and with a made-to-legal-order plaintiff, Colorado also seems to be showing its animus again... If Mr. Phillips ends up back before the Court, let’s hope the majority this time lays out clear guidelines protecting his religious and speech rights.”

Wall Street Journal

“The gay rights movement originally was an effort for us to be left alone and to not be punished for who we are. We simply wanted to be able to live our lives without fear of arrest, or our businesses raided or destroyed, because of who we were... Now, it’s Christians being hounded by a liberal elite in power in government and society who are demanding, ironically, that Christians should be harassed, punished, fired or lose their businesses because they’re different and don’t conform.”

Washington Times

Is Jack Phillips the only person in the entire state making custom cakes? Is there no other person who can deliver the blue-on-pink experience in culinary art? Apparently the [Colorado Civil Rights Commission] doesn’t know of any other bakers for referrals, or they’re really desperate for some regulatory revenge.

Hot Air

“No gay couple seeking a wedding cake is going to have to travel three states away to find one if Phillips declines their custom. No transgender person celebrating a coming out is going to want for baked goods if Phillips refuses service... The point is not to see to it that gay and transgender people can live their lives as they wish to — the point is to coerce Jack Phillips into conformity.”

National Review

“The Democrats want to talk to Don McGahn, and maybe they will ultimately prevail in court to get his testimony, but what’s the point? McGahn talked extensively to Mueller, and surely everything remotely damaging is already in the report

“Congress has the report, and now it is up to it to decide. But it doesn’t want to. It’s too painful to admit that the Mueller report was a bust on Russia and that the obstruction material, while damaging to Trump, is hardly a slam dunk; that the public doesn’t support impeachment; that if the House goes through with it anyway, it will end with a whimper in the Senate; and that it’s better for Democrats to focus on beating Trump in 2020 than a forlorn impeachment.”
Rich Lowry, National Review

A libertarian's take

“The scoop reflects poorly on Trump, who willfully misled the public for a decade in hopes of fraudulently representing himself as a man with a Midas touch. But he could not have succeeded without the assistance of many Americans, some mercenary, others over-credulous, who helped to spread the deceit and deception, generating countless newspaper articles, magazine stories, and TV segments that misinformed the public about the publicity hound’s record in business. New evidence of his staggering losses in that decade therefore provides an apt occasion to reflect on the media’s complicity in Trump’s brazen deceit and deception… Let [this] be a lesson for today’s tabloids, gossip columnists, over-credulous or mercenary journalists, and reality-television producers.”
Conor Friedersdorf, The Atlantic

On the bright side...

Mountain in Wales downgraded to hill.


Get troll-free political news.

Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.