World

Foundation backs Christian baker in U.S. Supreme Court case over religious freedom

(Screenshot/ADF video)Christian baker Jack Phillips refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs

An Alabama-based foundation dedicated to the defence of the U.S. Constitution and religious freedom has filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Supreme Court to support a Christian baker in Colorado who was ordered to make cakes for same-sex marriage celebrations in violation of his religious beliefs.

The Foundation for Moral Law is supporting Masterpiece Cakeshop, owned by Jack Phillips, in its fight in the U.S. Supreme Court.

The case started in July 2012 when same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Phillips to make a wedding cake for their wedding ceremony. Phillips declined, citing his religious conviction.

The couple, represented by the Americal Civil Liberties Union, filed a complaint before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled against Phillips.

Colorado's Court of Appeals affirmed the commission's decision that ordered Phillips and his staff to make cakes for same-sex wedding celebrations and to comply with the state's Anti-Discrimination Act by re-educating his staff and filing quarterly compliance reports for two years, according to the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which is representing the baker.

Advertisement

Last April, the Colorado Supreme Court declined to take the case, prompting the ADF to go to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop have shown great courage in standing for their convictions, and the Foundation is proud to stand with them. We pray that the High Court will agree that America is still a land that values the free exercise of religion," said foundation president Kayla Moore.

Foundation senior counsel John Eidsmoe explained that "like photography, wedding cake decoration is an art-form and therefore protected by the Free Speech Clause as well as the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment."

"These are explicit First Amendment protections, and they should not be eclipsed by a so-called right that is only a later creation of the Courts. I agree that hate is not a family value, but we need to remember that moral conviction is not hatred," he said.

Original Article

Post Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.