Both ACLU and ADF Support Right of Bakers Not to Bake Cakes for Gay Weddings (Update: No).

December 16th, 2014

The Times explores the debate over the right of bakers to decline to bake cakes for gay weddings.

The cases are largely being fought, and some say fueled, by two legal advocacy organizations: the American Civil Liberties Union, which supportssame-sex marriage, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, which opposes it. Each side cites bedrock American principles: First Amendment rights of religion and speech versus prohibitions in 21 states against discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.

One baker also declines: to make Halloween treats (no devil candy) or erotic pastries (no penis cupcakes).

Jack Phillips is a baker whose evangelical Protestant faith informs his business. There are no Halloween treats in his bakery — he does not see devils and witches as a laughing matter. He will not make erotic-themed pastries — they offend his sense of morality. And he declines cake orders for same-sex weddings because he believes Christianity teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

Mr. Phillips, whose refusal two years ago to make a cake for a gay male couple has led to a court battle now getting underway, is one of a small number of wedding vendors across the country who are emerging as the unlikely face of faith-based resistance to same-sex marriage.

These claims are not limited to baking:

There have been more than a half-dozen other instances of business owners, most citing their understanding of Christian faith, declining to provide services for same-sex weddings. They include a photographer in New Mexico, a florist in Washington State, a bakery in Oregon, an inn in Vermont and wedding chapels in Idaho and in Nevada. And new cases continue to arise — over the last few weeks, a wedding planner in Arizonadeclined to work with a lesbian couple, and a business in California refused to photograph the wedding of a gay male couple (and then closed its doors after an outcry).

The article notes that the two organizations supporting the defense of the bakers and other professionals, are both the ACLU and ADF:

The cases are largely being fought, and some say fueled, by two legal advocacy organizations: the American Civil Liberties Union, which supportssame-sex marriage, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, which opposes it. Each side cites bedrock American principles: First Amendment rights of religion and speech versus prohibitions in 21 states against discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.

Interestingly, the article quotes ADF, but not the ACLU.

Jack Phillips is a baker whose evangelical Protestant faith informs his business. There are no Halloween treats in his bakery — he does not see devils and witches as a laughing matter. He will not make erotic-themed pastries — they offend his sense of morality. And he declines cake orders for same-sex weddings because he believes Christianity teaches that homosexuality is wrong.

Mr. Phillips, whose refusal two years ago to make a cake for a gay male couple has led to a court battle now getting underway, is one of a small number of wedding vendors across the country who are emerging as the unlikely face of faith-based resistance to same-sex marriage.

I wonder if the ACLU was even willing to be quoted here. As I’ve remarked before, I’ve sensed a fissure in the ACLU. It is quite evident on the topic of free speech, but it is also fracturing on issues relating to gay marriage. This is the topic of my in-progress article, Collective Liberty.

Update: On a closer read, I see that the sentence from the Times is poorly worded.

The cases are largely being fought, and some say fueled, by two legal advocacy organizations: the American Civil Liberties Union, which supportssame-sex marriage, and the Alliance Defending Freedom, which opposes it. Each side cites bedrock American principles: First Amendment rights of religion and speech versus prohibitions in 21 states against discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.

They mean that the ADF supports the “bedrock American principles” of “First Amendment rights of religion and speech.” The ACLU supports the other “bedrock American Principles” of “discrimination in public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation.”

You know, I think this may be a Freudian slip on my part. When I see “bedrock American Principles” of “First Amendment rights of religion and speech,” my mind immediately thinks of the ACLU. Now, ti seems protections based on sexual orientation have trumped. This makes my point on “collective liberty” more apt.

I see that the ACLU field a brief in support of the Elane Photography Case. My mistake.