If the Cake Master of the title is Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, he should say no. He should refuse to make a cake for Stormy. But would he?
Let’s say Ms. Daniels wants a cake for a celebration of her stunning career which she’s planning with the help of her favorite coworkers in the adult film industry.
It might seem safe to assume that Mr. Phillips would decline to sell this cake to this customer. He is a devout Christian and the plaintiff in a lawsuit brought by two gay men for whom he refused to make a cake due to his religious opposition to gay marriage.
In the same vein, he should refuse to serve those who deal in pornography. Right?
If he did refuse to serve Ms. Daniels (aka Stephanie Clifford), at least Mr. Phillips’ Christian beliefs and his actions would be consistent. He and his Christian soul could sleep well each night in that state of purity.
Or could they (he and his soul)?
Phillips has agreed to be part of a lawsuit now before the highest court in the land: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case was argued last December and the Supremes have yet render their opinion. By taking this step, Phillips has gone from practicing his individual beliefs to enter politics. That he is happy to enter politics is indicated by his frequent appearances in support of religious liberty.
This Christian therefore stands at this epicenter of a case that could set a precedent for frivolous lawsuits and exceptions to discrimination based on religion, and indeed many kinds of exceptions claiming a right to discriminate.
As David Cole, who argued the case opposing Masterpiece Cakeshop for the ACLU, noted:
“It’s so easy to conjure hypothetical variations: What if the cake includes the message “God bless this union”? What if a wedding photographer, who has to be present at the ceremony in order to provide her services, objects to same-sex marriage? Should bakeries or photographers be permitted to refuse their services to an interracial or interfaith couple? Could a bakery refuse to make a birthday cake for a black family because its owner objects to celebrating black lives?”
Note that Phillips denied the plaintiffs a cake, period, and did not refuse to put two men on the top of the cake or some other “gay” design (which many stories on this case seem to imply). But he still holds that his cake is “expressive” and protected under the First Amendment.
But, then, that would mean that:
“If the courts were to recognize a First Amendment exemption to such general regulations of commercial conduct, it would render antidiscrimination laws, and many other business regulations, unenforceable in many settings.”
Even Antonin Scalia, as Cole notes, thought that broad view of free speech could “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” (David Cole’s article, “Let Them Buy Cake,” in the December 17, 2017 issue of the New York Review of Books, is highly recommended, since this issue has many legal subtleties and precedents—and his argument is quite convincing that Phillips’ side could lead to discrimination. )
How’s Phillips’ Christian soul doing, then, with upending rights and legal precedent in order to avoid the repugnant personal chore of delivering the cake to sinners? Or with helping discrimination in ways even his legal opponents cannot foresee?
Probably fine, because like all political Christians his beliefs are absolute and apply to everyone.
Actually, Phillips might instead be OK with serving Stormy Daniels and not the two gay men. That’s because evangelicals support patriarchy, jingoism, and machismo, as recent articles have put forth. Right? And they support Donald Trump because he epitomizes all those things.
Does Phillips condone or support the Trump presidency?
Has Mr. Phillips commented on the actions of evangelical leaders who presume to speak for him? They have granted an exception for the sins of Donald Trump, who is their “customer” by seeking their political support. They give him a mulligan.
Am I lumping together individual people of evangelical faith with the leadership of megachurches or Evagnelical interest organizations? I don’t think so.
Sessions’ DOJ has filed a Friend of the Court brief in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the first time a US Justice Department has favored a discriminatory action in a Supreme Court case. Mike Pence, a man who cannot go for coffee with a woman who is not his wife, serves willingly in the administration of Donald Trump, a married man who serially uses women for power and, presumably, ephemeral gratification.
So to recap: Mr. Phillips claims the right to deny a cake—a piece of dough and sugar artfully fashioned—to any customer whose own individual character is not acceptable to him, and will fight to see that right become a precedent for others, whether Christian, Zoroastrian, or Animist? But he has no problem with this administration.
So Mr. Phillips: what do you think about Stormy? And the other women who have come forward based on harassment by Donald Trump? And, are you at odds with Evangelical leaders who claim to speak for you, though they also speak for Trump?
Or are you giving your Christian leaders a “mulligan”?