Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, left, refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012, citing his First Amendment rights. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled against Phillips. Last year, Azucar Bakery owner Marjorie Silva, right, refused to write an anti-gay message on top of a cake for customer, who has since filed a complaint to the civil rights commission. (AP file photos)
Re: “Denver baker can reject a hateful message,” Jan. 24 editorial; and “Do bakers have free speech?,” Jan. 25 Krista Kafer column.
Trying in vain to draw clear distinctions between two local cake controversies, The Post stumbles, exhibiting poor logic. It claims Jack Phillips refused to work with a gay couple, where, in contrast, Marjorie Silva didn’t refuse to work with a customer, but simply refused to add the message opposing homosexuality.
The Post states, “Rejecting customers because of who they are — gay men celebrating marriage — is different from agreeing to serve a customer but declining to participate in writing offensive words.” But thatap false. Phillips told them that he’d be happy to make them a cake. He would not, however, participate in their wedding, even peripherally. He said, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.”
The Post goes on, “Yes, itap a fine grain difference, but a significant one.” Actually, itap a silly, contrived difference.
Charlie Danaher,Boulder
This letter was published in the Feb. 1 edition.Krista Kafer wrote a column comparing two cases of local bakers refusing a customer’s request. If she wants to be honest in her comparison, she needs to get her facts straight. Regarding one of the cases — Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple — Kafer states, “Phillips must choose between making wedding cakes with messages he opposes or not making wedding cakes at all.” In fact, Phillips was not refusing to write a message that offended him on the cake. He refused to make a traditional cake for a gay couple, and that is clearly discrimination based on who the customers were, not about what they wanted to write on their cake.
Cheryl Kasson,Denver
This letter was published in the Feb. 1 edition.Certainly, free speech and free exercise of religion are bedrock principles of our republic, and as gay marriage becomes more prevalent we are seeing increased instances where those principles are coming into conflict between people, and in these instances our laws are being tested.
Mullins vs. Masterpiece Cakeshop was one such instance. In that case, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission held that providing a wedding cake for a same-sex reception did not infringe upon the baker’s rights, and that is the right decision. If we allow businesses to project their religious moral beliefs onto customers, we establish a system where the free exercise of the would-be customer is infringed upon, and we create a condition where an individual can invoke their religious freedom to ignore any law they find unpalatable. In essence we would allow every man to be a law unto himself, which is not desirable.
If we value free exercise of religion, we must respect the basic dignity of those who hold differing beliefs, even when it is challenging to do so.
Brian W. Barnett,New York City
This letter was published in the Feb. 1 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
