No Free Speech Defense For Christian Baker Who Refused To Bake Gay Wedding Cake

Amanda Prestigiacomo,

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has once again showed itself to be useless, or inconsistent at best, rejecting the claim that Colorado-based Christian baker Jack Phillips has free speech protections in refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding because it conflicted with his deeply held religious beliefs.

The Washington Times reports:

The American Civil Liberties Union told the Supreme Court on Monday the First Amendment doesn’t give a Christian baker the right to discriminate against a same-sex couple by refusing to bake them a wedding cake.

The ACLU is representing Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, a same-sex couple, who brought a civil rights complaint against Jack Phillips, a Christian baker, who refused to bake them a wedding cake due to his religious beliefs.

gaycake_small No Free Speech Defense For Christian Baker Who Refused To Bake Gay Wedding Cake Law

“This is not the first time a business open to the public has sought to avoid an anti-discrimination law by invoking the First Amendment,” reads the ACLU brief. “In every prior case, this Court has rejected such claims, whether framed as involving the freedom of expression, association, or religion.”

Phillips’ lawyers from Alliance Defending Freedom, however, maintain that the baker has the right to reserve his “artistic talents to promote only messages that align with his religious beliefs.”

“Every American should be free to choose which art they will create and which art they won’t create without fear of being unjustly punished by the government,” said senior counselor David Cortman.

“That’s why the bad decision in this case needs to be reversed,” he added. “It imperils everyone’s freedom by crushing dissent instead of tolerating a diversity of views. We are all at risk when government is able to punish citizens like Jack just because it doesn’t like how he exercises his artistic freedom. America must have room for people who disagree to coexist.”

This is not the first time the ACLU has refused to protect Christians, seemingly because of their progressive politics.

As reported by Robby Soave this summer, the ACLU reversed their support for the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) seemingly for “a singular disdain for Christian belief.”

“[T]he ACLU believes the peyote-smoking Native Americans and beard-wearing Sikh men are practicing an acceptable degree of religious freedom, but Christians are engaged in discrimination, and discrimination is bad,” wrote Soave, referencing the ACLU suddenly changing their tune on religious liberty in the face of the famous Hobby Lobby case.

“This seems like a funny place to draw the line, though. If religious freedom does not include the freedom for individuals to peacefully decline involvement in private commercial activities they find objectionable, it’s a meaningless concept,” he added.

Phillips’ case will be heard before the Supreme Court starting December 5.