Home » News » Resolution of wedding cake case — is it all about fashioning the facts?

By Ronald K. L.Collins, published on November 1, 2017

Select Dynamic field

Accord

 

Amy Howe: “because Phillips . . . believes that marriage should be limited to opposite-sex couples, he told Craig and Mullins that he would not design a custom cake for their same-sex wedding celebration.” [Underlinning added]

 

FACTS PORTRAYED AS “BAKING” OR ‘REFUSING TO SELL A “BAKED” CAKE

 

Respondents’ Statement of Relevant Facts

 

 

“Mullins and Craig expressed interest in buying a cake for “our wedding.” Pet. App. 64a. Phillips refused to serve them, explaining that the Company had a policy of refusing to sell baked goods for weddings of same-sex couples. Pet. App. 65a.2 Phillips did not ask for, and Mullins and Craig did not offer, any details about the design of the cake. Phillips was unwilling to make any cake for the wedding because they were a same-sex couple, and therefore any further discussion would have been fruitless. Pet. App. 65a. As the Administrative Law Judge in the Colorado administrative proceedings found, “[f]or all Phillips knew at the time, [Mullins and Craig] might have wanted a nondescript cake that would have been suitable for consumption at any wedding.” Pet. App. 75a.” [Underlining added]

 

Brief in Opposition Leslie Cooper (counsel of Record)

 

Accord

 

David Savage: “‘Sorry, guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’ With that blunt comment, Jack Phillips, a baker who designs custom wedding cakes, sent two men out the door and set off a legal battle between religious liberty and gay rights that comes before the U.S. Supreme Court this fall.” [Underlining added]

 

“Food preparation is not a core First Amendment Activity”

YOU MIGHT ALSO LIKE

More than 1,700 articles on First Amendment topics, court cases and history