Protecting religious and expressive liberty should be a piece of cake - Washington Examiner

It is a wonderful thing to see federal courts protect religious liberty. That’s what the courts are doing in the famous cases of Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips, against whom Colorado officials continue to press a vendetta because he refuses to produce cakes in favor of ceremonies that contradict his Christian faith.

The U.S. Supreme Court effectively ruled in Phillips’ favor last June when he challenged attempts by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or CCRC, to punish him for refusing to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Unwilling to accept the rebuke, the CCRC shortly thereafter tried to punish Phillips again, this time for declining to make a cake celebrating the anniversary of a person’s gender transition. Phillips sued to stop this harassment by the commission, and the commissioners filed a motion asking for his suit to be dismissed.

On every issue but Phillips’ request for monetary damages, U.S. District Judge Wiley Daniel on Jan. 4 denied the commissioners’ absurd motions and thus allowed Phillips’ suit against them to continue. This was no example of a right-wing judge pushing some Evangelical agenda: Daniels, an appointee of former President Bill Clinton, is no conservative firebrand.

Daniels wrote that the commissioners clearly had demonstrated “hostility towards Phillips, which is sufficient to establish they are pursuing the discrimination charges against Phillips in bad faith, motivated by Phillips’ … religion.”

He also noted that the Supreme Court found Phillips himself was not discriminatory against people of different sexual habits or “gender identity,” because as long as his cake wasn’t for use in a ceremony to which he objected on religious grounds, he showed a consistent “willingness to sell birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies, to gay and lesbian customers.”

At issue is not just freedom of religion, but of expression. Daniels wrote that Phillips “has adequately alleged his speech is being chilled by the credible threat of prosecution.”

Daniels’ ruling is not a final judgment, of course. It does not mean Phillips will win his case, but it does mean his case can continue, and it indicates his grounds are solid. The only thing lacking, unfortunately, is a direct sanction against the commissioners as individuals in response to their outlandish harassment against the cake artist.

It should be obvious, and axiomatic in these United States, that an artist cannot rightly be compelled to produce art of a certain kind, promoting a certain message. Phillips deserves to win his case, and his detractors should buy their cakes elsewhere.

Let's block ads! (Why?)