News Religious Liberty

Bank of America and Comcast Back Group Demanding Jack Phillips Bake Transgender Celebration Cake

With the ink barely dry on the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is continuing its crusade to punish Jack Phillips for running his business in accordance with his faith.

Earlier this summer, the Supreme Court reprimanded the CCRC for the “hostility” towards Jack’s religious liberty and, stung by the defeat, LGBT activists have prepared another assault on the cake baker. Just days after the ruling, the state agency found probable cause with a complaint filed by a transgender attorney against Masterpiece Cakeshop and ordered Jack’s business to undergo compulsory mediation.

The alleged violation? Declining to create a pink cake with blue icing in commemoration of gender transition.

However, Jack and his attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom are striking back and have filed a lawsuit against the Governor, Attorney General, and members of the CCRC. According to the lawsuit:

It is now clear that Colorado will not rest until Phillips either closes Masterpiece Cakeshop or agrees to violate his religious beliefs. The state’s continuing efforts to target Phillips do not just violate the Constitution; they cross the line into bad faith. This Court should put a stop to Colorado’s unconstitutional bullying.

Not surprisingly, LGBT activist groups are digging in and joining the assault on religious liberty. What is surprising, is that major corporations are funding these efforts with YOUR dollars.

For example, One Colorado, a member of the left-wing Equality Foundation, is working to push an agenda that threatens 1st Amendment protections for Masterpiece Cakeshop and all business owners like Jack. Our research has found several major corporations are sponsors of One Colorado’s annual fundraising event including Bank of America and Comcast.

You can see all the companies that help fund the anti-religious liberty activists at One Colorado here.

Would you do business with a company that works to undermine your 1st Amendment protections? If Bank of American and Comcast are hostile towards religious liberty, we need to hold them accountable and send our dollars to companies that will not fund these radical groups. At 2ndVote we recommend banking with your local community bank where you know the individuals who run the business and know your dollars will stay close to home.

We encourage you to tell Bank of America and Comcast why you’re taking your business elsewhere. Use the links below to contact leadership directly:

Send Bank of America an Email! Send Comcast an Email!

Help us continue creating content like this and educating conservative shoppers by becoming a 2ndVote Member today!

  • Chris

    If Jack at Masterpiece Cakeshop operates as a private Members Only Club (an easy remedy), then he has every right to exercise his religious beliefs and to deny service to anyone. If he is open to the public, then he must serve all members of the public.

    • PH

      He does serve all members of the public with no problem. They can buy anything already made off the shelf in the bakery. But he doesn’t have to create anything that violates his religious convictions. Why do people like you think it wonderful for, say, a dress designer to refuse to make a dress for someone they simply don’t like, but insist others must be forced to use their talents to celebrate something violating their First Amendment right to freedom of religion? And this new case is a blatant hit job specifically targeting Jack because what was wanted was not a special order cake but an excuse to continue to harass Jack for daring to live by his principles.

      • Chris

        PH: Yes, the dress designer should be required to make the dress, regardless whether he/she likes the customer.
        The remedy for a business open to the public is to inform the potential customer that they do not wish to serve the potential customer, and that the request for creative efforts could be better fulfilled by a business that wants their patronage.
        However, if the potential customer insists, then the business must make their best effort to fulfill their customer’s request (assuming the request is fully legal).
        If, on the other hand, the business wants to serve only a part of the public, then they can become a private members-only club.
        And, in the new case, how is the color of the cake “art”? It’s not.
        I do respect Jack’s religious beliefs – the state must go out of their way to find a remedy which respects Jack;s religious beliefs…while ensuring he serves each member of the public equally. But if a suitable remedy can not be found, then the public right to equal accommodation must supersede Jack’s religious rights.
        If my devout religious beliefs prevented me from serving blacks or women, should I be allowed not to serve them? Clearly not.

        • Spectrum

          “…If my devout religious beliefs prevented me from serving blacks or women, should I be allowed not to serve them? Clearly not….”.

          Not relevant. You’re missing the point yet again.

    • Spectrum
  • guest

    I took all my money out of bank of America in 2004.I haven’t had pay t.v. for more than a decade.I wouldn’t use comcast for anything.

  • Spectrum
    • Chris

      Spectrum: I have complete respect for your beliefs – you can think whatever you wish, as can I. We don’t have to like each other, and we do not have to agree. However, my business must serve to the best of its ability each law abiding citizen (including you), regardless whether I like you or agree with you – even if doing so is against my religious beliefs.

      • Spectrum

        And what does that have to do with a Christian baker refusing to be forced to celebrate a gay “couple”‘s “wedding” ?

        I’ll try explaining it to you for the 1,000th time ; He wasn’t refusing the PERSON service because he didn’t agree with their sexual preference, he was refusing to violate his religious conscience by in effect, PARTICIPATING in their “wedding” – BY the action of baking the cake ! In doing so he would be ENDORSING what they are doing. Endorsing their relationship is not the same as refusing them service. He did not refuse them. He would have supplied them with any OTHER product they had wanted.

        You just don’t understand that distinction, do you ? You say “I have complete respect for your beliefs”. Then how about PROVING that, by respecting a Christian’s RIGHT not to have to be compelled to offend God ?

        They could have gone to any other non Christian baker for their cake. That they chose to deliberately persist with this one, shows that the whole thing was designed to set up the baker. To use him as ( another ) legal test case to push the gay agenda and coerce Christians to submit to it.

  • Roger W. Knight

    Perhaps Masterpiece Cakeshop is the only cake baker in the entire state of Colorado. Will South Park do an episode about this?
    We don’t require a Protestant church to perform Catholic wedding. We don’t require a Catholic church to perform a Muslim wedding. We don’t require a mosque to perform a Jewish wedding. We don’t require a synagogue to perform a Mormon wedding. We don’t require any of these religious organizations to perform a same sex wedding. But we don’t prohibit them from performing same sex weddings either.
    While I agree we had to use the hammer of government power to deal with racial and anti-Jewish discrimination in the Bad Old Days, we simply do not have the kind of poisonous situation where a gay couple absolutely cannot find butchers, bakers, and candlestick makers to cater their weddings or other kinds of celebrations.
    Masterpiece Cakeshop won its case in the Supreme Court. How about we let them be while developing other cake shops willing to cater to those whom Masterpiece will not?