If You Want to Read the Commission’s Order to the Colorado Baker, Here It Is

This post concerning the egregious violation of the First Amendment rights of Colorado baker Jack Phillips has garnered quite a few comments.

A number of those comments have contained partial quotes from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s order requiring Mr Phillips to undergo court-ordered brain-washing, ie, “staff training.” The order also included demands that he re-write his business’ policy and file quarterly reports.

Here, for those who are interested, is a photo of the original order in its entirety.

Unnamed document

Jack phillips 2

Jack phillips order 3

  • pesq87

    Very interesting. I note the language in paragraph 1 is that the baker must “cease and desist from discriminating against … same sex couples by refusing to sell them … any product [they] would sell to heterosexual couples.” They are focusing on the cake as a product. From what I’ve read on the internet, most who side with bakers don’t see it as merely the sale of a product, but as participation in a wedding service.

    • pagansister

      The cake is indeed just a product—I hadn’t thought of that. If he was a jeweler would he have refused to sell them a ring that looked like a “wedding” band because he didn’t agree with the use of the ring?

      • Mike Blackadder

        Almost, but we’re not talking about ‘refusing to sell a ring’, it’s about deciding to say no when asked to go make a ring. One situation is outside the jeweler’s rights the other is not. The two are being conflated because the actual illegal behavior has not occurred, but we want to punish the jeweler anyway because he has the wrong moral views.

  • bonaventure

    Welcome to the Soviet Socialist Republic of Colorado.

  • adevar@hotmail.com

    God, we need your help….

  • jessestopshop

    Eek! So I can discriminate against religious behavior but I can’t discriminate against sexual behavior.

    I think they should make a law that requires everyone to get along and behave like others would like.

    They should have training sessions.

  • hamiltonr

    Lark62, I’ve allowed quite a few strong statements with ugly contentions about the Church from you because you were raising issues that no one else was bringing to the table. However, please make personal criticisms of the other people who come to Public Catholic to discuss things.

  • Brian Kerzetski

    I didn’t see where anyone was discriminating against someone because of there orientation. Could you point that out to me? I’m not sure why you brought it up.

  • Brian Kerzetski

    Most people don’t order their wedding cakes by saying, “I would like a white tiered cake for a non-determinate event.”

  • DPierre

    Lark62, you are making a fool of yourself.

    You have no understanding of the difference between Mosaic ceremonial laws and eternal moral laws, which the *earliest Christians* most certainly understood.

    Good grief.

  • FW Ken

    I wonder what “including but not limited to…” means. What else besides instruction in the law will be required? And who decides?

  • hamiltonr

    I guess this just went past me. My husband and I were married by a Methodist minister many years before we converted to the Catholic Church. Our marriage was considered valid.

  • April Spring

    People have free will to exercise their rights to refuse services: no shoes, no shirt, no service. If a true Christian refuse to bake a wedding cake for a sodomy marriage (two guys doing it in the rear is NOT a marriage BUT a mental disorder), then he or she should have that right to not celebrate a MENTAL DISORDER (because people misusing their sexual organs to the point of getting AIDS, HIV, HPV, etc. is (wait for it liberal)—–BAD! Now why is this BAD? For why should Christians become ENABLERS to INSANITY? Shouldn’t we live in REALITY, Bill? Because we don’t want diseases to be spreading around, Bill. This whole mind control or YOU WILL LOSE YOUR BUSINESS is ‘re-education.’

    Diversity is good, Bill, mind control is BAD, Bill.

    • hamiltonr

      April, the reason for allowing Mr Phillips to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding is that he has a right as a person and an American not to be coerced into violating his own moral code. The sexual activity adults freely choose to engage in in private is not part of the question.

      • April Spring

        I agree with you, however, adults freely engaging in weird sexual delusional clown act doing it in the rear (which God forbid) is an abomination. However, when this private act (sodomy) is promoted in schools then I have a problem with this, big time. Children should not be taught harmful things that will endanger them physically, mentally, and spiritually.

        I agree with you, I know I digressed.

    • Lark62

      April – You are aware, aren’t you, that male/female couples can do anal and oral?

  • Mike Blackadder

    Apparently because the PROSPECTIVE customers are gay they have the right to walk into a bakery and order the baker to go back to the kitchen and make them a cake the way they want it even if he doesn’t want to. That’s a new law that I’ve never heard of.
    If Phillips was a wedding planner I suppose we would all agree that he is not allowed to refuse a gay couple. The very fact that patrons (if gay) attempt to hire him renders it legally obligatory that he say yes. In fact, if the lesbian couple wanted him to decorate the hall with dildos hanging from the ceiling than he is obviously violating their human rights if he refuses.

    As I’ve raised time and again, if you replace the gay couple with white supremicists asking for a ‘White Power’ cake, or if you are talking about an atheist photographer who might choose not to work a Catholic wedding then everyone seems to change their tune. You have a right to your opinion and your religion so long as the government authority and majority opinion agrees it is the RIGHT opinion. Wow, how far you have fallen America!

    • Lark62

      No comment on the white supremists. I don’t know if they are a protected class, but don’t want to go there.

      As for the atheist photographer or baker, they have to obey the law just like everyone else. I would defend the catholic who was discriminated against by an atheist.

  • Mike Blackadder

    That’s not an answer to Brian’s question. You basically have stated [it's discrimination because it's discrimination].
    He can’t ‘weasel’ out of the charge because in this case the prosecuting authority obviously doesn’t even have to recognize Phillips’ basic rights and freedoms or even make any accounting for whether his rights and freedoms are violated in consideration of their decision. He can’t ‘weasel’ out of the charge because his only offense is that he chooses not to participate in a gay wedding which is not illegal in the first place. How can you legally defend yourself against a charge that is not based on the law? How do you defend yourself when the prosecutor is the judge and you don’t have an actual hearing?

  • hamiltonr

    Note: Pay attention to length on your comments. Please don’t go on for 1,000 words or reproduce lengthy court documents.

  • Caspian

    Mrs. Hamilton, I am truly appalled. Your insistance in subverting the facts of the ruleing are unconscionable. I had composed a comment berating your behaviour..but then deleted it. Now I just truly, TRULY want to understand your motivation for makeing such statements. Then again perhaps I don’t want to know.

    I don’t know if you’ll let this pass your filter, or if you’ll even care. I’m just genuinely disterbed and saddened by this.

    • hamiltonr

      Caspian, I am not appalled or anything, but I am curious. Why can’t you focus on issues instead of people?
      Also, if you find it so disturbing to read my posts, then my advice is that you do yourself a favor and don’t read them.

  • hamiltonr

    Matthew 26: 28. This is my blood, which is the sign of the NEW COVENANT for the forgiveness of sins.

    said by Christ the Lord at the Last Supper while He was instituting the Eucharist.

  • FW Ken

    A “million percent injustice”. Sounds like your sarcasm detector is on the fritz,

    There is a certain type of humor that mocks by exaggeration. I’ve seen much better examples of it than this, but it smells like mockery to me.

    • Lark62

      My apologies if I missed the sarcasm. I thought you had accused me of sarcasm and mockery (which can at times be a fair accusation). But some have seriously compared the order to communist re-education camps, so yes, I took a “million percent injustice” seriously. It sounds like we might actually be in “violent agreement” where we debate for hours before we figure out we are debating the same side. :) Thanks.

  • jessej

    My apologies pesq. I was using an english dictionary when I used orientation.
    Which dictionary do you use?

    • hamiltonr

      This is getting silly. And needlessly insulting. No reason for that on either side.

  • hamiltonr

    I’m talking about attacking people and their viewpoints Caspian. You can’t seem to stop doing that.

    Your comments talk about what you think of other people’s views on issues, and of the other person themselves, and how all this affects you in some hyper emotional way that your comments tend to label as moral rather than what it is: hyper emotional. Your commentary does this instead of talking about the issues at hand.

    Now, you’re making a comment labeling viewpoints that you don’t agree with as “demonizing.” It is not “demonizing” to have a viewpoint that others disagree with. It might be “demonizing” to persistently sling this kind of rhetoric at others for no good reason. I haven’t thought about it enough to know what I think in that regard. It is certainly taxing and annoying and it does not address anything at all.

    You’ve taxed me with repeated critiques about my supposed moral/literary/etc failings, as if that matters or has anything to say about anything.

    Can you, do you even know how to, talk about issues and not people?

    I’m going to start deleting your comments just because I’m tired of this nonsense if you don’t stop it.

  • hamiltonr

    Well … as a for instance, the issue under question in most comments on these two posts about the Colorado baker is whether and how First Amendment Freedom of Religion applies to situations concerning the 1964 Civil Rights Act and its various interpretations, including recent interpretations applying to homosexuals. Larded onto that is the question of whether or not local and state statutes enacting various civil rights commissions or some similar government construct cancel out First Amendment Freedom of Religion.

    I’m being more specific than the commentary that has shown up on this post so far, but those are the underlying issues for most of it.

    Notice, these are an ISSUES. They are not about specific people, and will not be resolved, or (at least on this blog) discussed by attacking and belittling other people.

    If you can’t address these issues or read this kind of discussion without it upsetting you to the point that you are overwhelmed with being “appalled,” then for your own good, you need to avoid blogs like this one.

  • FW Ken

    That is what the fellow in Colorado is doing: no more wedding cakes.

  • April Spring

    Well, why don’t we turn the table around then?
    Would it be fair for a homosexual baker to be forced into baking a cake that said: “Homosexual marriage is an abomination.” And this must be printed right on the cake. If the traditional marriage group wanted this cake for their pep rally, would it be fair the homosexual baker to bake this cake?

    Fairness is a two way street pagan!

    • pagansister

      That would be a very different cake request. Who the heck would request that? Also, as far as we know, the baker in this situation didn’t have to write anything on the cake. But again, the baker you mentioned was selling to the public—Cake is product.and if the “traditional marriage group” wanted that—why not? He/she doesn’t have to agree with the words. He/she can know that as soon as the cake is cut—the words will be destroyed. :-)

      • FW Ken

        Wedding cakes don’t usually have words. They have flowers, bells, and , traditionally, little dolls on top (not sure I ever saw one of those in real life. There is no mistaking what they are for. They celebrate an event. It doesn’t help the discussion to pretend otherwise.

    • Lark62

      Yes. If a christian group asked a gay baker for a cake stating that homosexuality is an abomination, yes the baker should bake that cake, and decorate it. If a church asked an atheist for a cake to celebrate a person’s conversion from atheism to christianity, the atheist would need to make the cake. That is how equal treatment works.

      In the short term, atheists and gays have been on the wrong end of discrimination, so as a group they are more likely to take equality seriously and agree to the cakes. There will always be exceptions. And as time passes, humans being human, someone will forget that equality means everyone and we will go through the battles again.

      That is why the courts and judges that defend the constitution are so important. If a christian were denied service, they would have a right to sue.
      And groups such as ACLU and FFRF would defend you. I know that in
      these cases I would be on the side of the christian.

      A christian should be able to walk into a bakery and order a cake, any cake. No one should be sent from store to store looking for a baker with the right personal opinions.

  • FW Ken

    In Acts 10, St. Peter that a vision that ended the O.T. dietary laws. The moral laws were never abrogated.

    As to who won’t let who live in peace, you might review the current discussion and see who is demanding that someone else violate their conscience.

  • hamiltonr

    Lark62, you are becoming argumentative for the sake of argument itself. You are also becoming hectoring. If you sincerely have questions about theology this particular, I suggest you consult a priest.

    I’m going to allow this one question, then I’m going to delete the others.

    We’ve already answered your question. Jesus instituted a New Covenant. Peter’s dream was not so much about dietary laws as it was people. The debate at the time was whether non-Jewish converts had to follow the Mosaic law, particularly concerning circumcision. This dream gave Peter the answer, which was “no.”

    Christians entered a new, more direct route to holiness and a relationship with God. Instead of offering sacrifices to atone for their sins, all they had to do was confess and desire to change. The reason was that Jesus Himself was the ultimate sacrifice that atoned for all sin, for all time.

    Christ said, “I did not come to destroy the law and the prophets, I came to fulfill them.” This is what He meant. He fulfilled all the requirements in the Mosaic law for approaching the Almighty once and for all. That was the meaning of what happened when the veil around the Holy of Holies in the Temple was split from top to bottom when Jesus died. God made it quite clear by doing that that He was no longer shut off from people, He was available to all of us by way of Jesus’ sacrifice on Calvary.

    This in no abrogates the moral requirements pertaining to sin. A lie is still wrong, as is adultery and murder. The difference is that now we can be forgiven for these sins by simply turning away from them and going to God for forgiveness.

    All the old Mosaic law that required extreme and complicated acts of atonement has been fulfilled — exactly as He said — by Christ Jesus.

    Atheists have latched onto these Old Testament requirements and successfully used them to confuse Christians who are ignorant of the inner workings of their faith. However, the atheist behavior is based on what is either willful ignorance of that which they seek to criticize, or deliberate dishonesty in the matter.

    Now, I’m going to start deleting these kinds of comments unless I truly believe they are sincere questions.

  • hamiltonr

    See my reply below Lark.

  • Brian Kerzetski

    I am still not seeing where the baker said he wouldn’t serve them because of their orientation. Would you please provide that source?

    • Bill S

      By refusing to provide a cake for a gay wedding, he effectively discriminated against gays.