SCOTUS Must Defend Religious Freedom in “Gay Wedding Cake” Case

June 26, 2017

by Terry Schilling


On Monday, the Supreme Court announced it would hear arguments next term in a landmark religious freedom case: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights.

As The Hill reports:

The justices are being asked in the case — known as Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights — whether shop owner Jack Phillips has to make a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins’ same-sex marriage under Colorado’s public accommodations law.

Phillips claims that requiring him to provide the wedding cake violates his constitutional rights to freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.

This landmark case is the perfect test case for the infamous “gay wedding cake” controversy, and truthfully, it will likely determine the future of religious freedom as we know it in America.

Will it be permissible to run a Christian bakery? Will the rights of free citizens to live out their faith in the public square be respected? Or will Christian schools, charities, businesses, and families be forced to acquiesce to the hyper-sexual LGBT agenda or face government persecution?

Recently, Christians and other people of faith have been intimidated and bullied into silence by radical progressives in positions of power who seek to promote the new religion of hyper-sexuality above all others. This is, of course, a blatant attack on religious freedom. By taking up the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court has a tremendous opportunity to protect the First Amendment and ensure that America’s position as the world’s beacon for religious freedom is ultimately upheld.

For more info on the case — and cake shop owner Jack Phillips — be sure to watch the video below:

Photo credit: Screenshot via YouTube


Terry Schilling is executive director of the American Principles Project.

Archive: Terry Schilling

6 comments on “SCOTUS Must Defend Religious Freedom in “Gay Wedding Cake” Case”

  • D.K. Carter says:

    Our country is founded on Christian beliefs and not letting church and state run our lives. We fought against the English to practice and live our lives the way we chose not by all the government rules. I don’t go and tell people what to believe or how to live so don’t come and tell me what to believe or how to live. Some people in this country just seem to feel they are entitled and if they don’t get their way well we will just take them to court.

    • jk105 says:

      In the 1960s public accomodations refused to serve blacks and interracial couples. They were following what they believed to be their “Christian” beliefs in the separation of the races.

      So to be consistent D.K., you believe businesses have the right to refuse services to black people. Right? Or does a public accommodation need to abide by anti-discrimination laws?

  • Greg sporer says:

    A private business should be able to refuse service. What happened to no shirt, no shoes, no service. Business will have to accomadate any request. If some KKK group wants me to bake a cake. No way! I agree no goverment office should turn away anybody.

    I founded a a service dog ministry for Veterans at no cost. LGBT are welcome, but Westboro Baptist are the cult that protest at Veterans funerals. No way they get a service dog!

    • jk105 says:

      Greg, business do not have to serve any request, just those covered by equal access discrimination laws. The KKK is an ideology, not an inherent human quality like race, sex, sexual orientation.

      Before opening a public accommodation (business), the owner signs a contract promising to abide by the law. This baker broke that contract. I take it you don’t believe in honoring contracts.

  • jk105 says:

    Religious freedom? Cute, coming from a right wing totalitarian who would use the brute force of government to deny churches the right to perform legal same-sex marriages. Shill is the enemy of religious freedom.

    And this bakery is a public accommodation, not a religious institution. The bigot is not above the law.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *