To bake or not to bake, that is the question. And apparently, in Jack Phillip’s case, the question has already been answered unless the United States Supreme Court overrules Colorado’s court decisions.
Phillips, a Colorado cakeshop owner, will be compelled to paint, design or sketch whatever his customers ask of him because Phillips can’t refuse, according to current law.
Phillips' story began five years ago when a same-sex couple asked Phillips to design a cake for their wedding. Phillips, a devout Christian, declined the invitation. In response, the couple sued Phillips, claiming that Phillips violated the couple’s civil rights.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has been portrayed as yet another “one of those” religious liberty cases in the ever-continuing saga of the religious right versus everyone else. The far-reaching implications of Masterpiece, however, are beyond cliché or religious. The court’s decision will have serious ramifications on free expression for all individuals.
In fact, this is a case about protecting the right to freedom of expression more than anything else. The central concern of Masterpiece is not about what Phillips believes and practices. Phillips hires LGBTQ individuals and Phillips serves LGBTQ individuals. However, he will not design art for celebrations that violate his beliefs, including Halloween and lewd bachelor parties.
Unfortunately, current law disallows exemptions, forcing individuals to offer artistic, design or specialty services to customers regardless of his or her convictions or religious beliefs.
While the cause in this case concerns same-sex marriage, which has generated significant attention, this is not a case about the merits of same-sex marriage nor Phillip’s opinions on LGBTQ individuals.
Picture this: a well-known designer and Mexican immigrant has been asked to design a suit for President Trump for an upcoming speech on the travel ban. The designer refuses the offer because the immigrant’s family is being deported. Should the designer be forced to make the suit? No, it seems absurd to force the designer to create something that celebrates a law he abhors. Can the designer refuse to sell fabric and thread to Trump? Again no — but for different reasons.
In the first scenario, the designer should not be required to make the suit because his creative process — his art — would be hostage to a cause the designer finds offensive. In the second instance, Trump wants to buy a good and because the designer simply doesn’t like Trump, he doesn’t serve him. However, in the act of selling thread to a customer, the designer is not being required to endorse the customer’s personal practices; in the second case the owner is discriminating against Trump.
Phillips’ story takes place in the first scenario, and not in the second, because he is protesting participating in his equivalent of “creating a designer suit for Trump.” However, a lot of Americans place Phillips in the second scenario due to pervasive skewed messaging and only cursory understanding of the case.
According to a 2016 Pew Research Study, Americans, more than any other nationality, cherish the right to free expression. If Americans viewed the Masterpiece case framed as a freedom of expression case, statistics suggest that most Americans would likely side with Phillips.
However, the civil rights narrative has overridden any free expression aspect of Masterpiece; society’s attention has been misdirected.
The civil rights of any group, especially groups that struggle for representation, should be protected unquestionably. But this is not a case about Phillips refusing to sell goods to LGBTQ individuals — it is about him refusing to participate in a ceremony that violates his personal beliefs and practices.
To be forced to bake or not to bake? That is the question.
And we must decide the answer.
Sara Jarman is currently a second-year BYU law student, a former KSL.com journalist and author of the book Elephants on the Rampage: The Eclipse of American Conservatism.