Charge Colorado Baker for Refusing Service to Same-Sex Couples


Target: Colorado Attorney General John Suthers

Goal: Charge a Denver Bakery for violating the civil rights of same-sex couples by refusing service

A baker in Denver, Colorado recently garnered national attention after refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Following further investigation, it was discovered that the bakery had refused service to same-sex couples numerous occasions. Not only is this a violation of business laws, it is a violation of human rights and must be stopped.

Following the incident, Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed a discrimination complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver. The couple married in Massachusetts and was looking for a cake. When Jack Phillips, the owner, realized that the cake was for the couple themselves, he informed them that he couldn’t serve them without violating his religious faith. Phillips claims that taking their business would have violated his Christian beliefs. “I was angry and I felt dehumanized and mortified,” Mullins said.

The Colorado Attorney General’s office also filed a formal complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop after the ACLU found out that Phillips had refused to serve other gay couples. If Phillips loses the case, he will be required to “cease and desist” from refusing service to same-sex couples. If Phillips doesn’t comply, he could face fines of $500 per incident and up to a year in prison.

Both Phillips and his lawyer continue to argue that charging him with a crime would violate his freedom of conscience. Many have also come out in support of Phillips and his first amendment rights and “right to refuse service.” What those who support him fail to understand, however, is that while he certainly has the right to his religious beliefs he has willfully entered the public marketplace, which makes him subject to business laws regardless of what he does or does not believe.

Refusing service to same-sex couples is the equivalent of refusing service to someone because of their race or gender. One’s religious beliefs are sacred and personal, but they should never be used to cause harm to someone or disrespect them in any way. Those in the public marketplace have one responsibility, and that is to provide the best products and customer service they can. It is not to pass judgment on those they serve. Jack Phillips violated the civil rights of same-sex couples multiple times and for that he should be punished. Please sign the petition below to demand that he is charged for the crimes he committed.


Dear John Suthers,

You recently filed a complaint against Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver, for refusing service to same-sex couples on multiple occasions. Phillips continues to argue that his first amendment rights are being violated and has gained a host of supporters who believe that what he was doing was not only legal, but also morally just. His actions are a clear violation of civil rights. Refusing service to these people simply because of their sexual orientation is no different than refusing to serve them because of their race or gender.

In operating his bakery, Phillips has entered the public marketplace and is subject to the same business laws as everyone else regardless of his religion. He cannot be allowed to continue to pass judgment on those who visit his establishment. Please see that he is charged for his crimes and that he is no longer allowed to refuse service to same-sex couples.


[Your Name Here]

Photo credit: buccellaassociati via Flickr

Sign the Petition

  • Only your name will be displayed. By signing, you accept our terms and may receive updates on this and related causes.
FacebookCare2 NewsTwitterEmailShare


  1. Susan Cummings says:

    I do not applaud boycotts and believe that under the U.S. Constitution everyone is protected. The couple that desired the services of this particular baker also had a choice to go elsewhere. Perhaps the refusal of their request for the bakers particular product is because they are Christians and can not participate, due to their religion, in providing for anything that goes against their religious practice. If the left have so much sympathy for those who must be supplied with any and all accommodations because of their religion, but yet can not understand the religious rights of Christians, then there must have been another agenda. Equal right to practice one’s religious beliefs pertains to all, not just those of whom you may support. The couple is not without another service or bakery that can and will accommodate, so they should have respected the bakers wishes and found another who may be of a more secular position. One of the issues that I believe will become a strong question, is this; was there anywhere else that they could have gone? Were there other bakeries that they tried before this one, or was there any other bakeries they could have sought service from? A person with a company or business has the right to determine how they will conduct their business and with whom they choose. There is a law that allows for discrimination based on a persons religion, or other factors. Race and other issues of such can not be one of those factors. The couple seeking the bakers service had other places they could have gone, but decided to go there, perhaps because they knew they were religious. To many “unlawful” lawsuits are being applied for based on unequal rights, not on equal rights, and it is for disruptive purposes, not because of civil rights. Americans are waking up to this form of judicial terrorism.

  2. Andrew Helton Andrew Helton says:

    It is completely illogical to assume that the couples visiting the bakery with the intent of causing a stir.Did you ever think that maybe the bakery is really good? Maybe they really liked their designs? Word of mouth from friends? Occam’s razor. Your syllogism here is rife with flaws. Yes, everyone has the right to their religion, but nobody has the right to keep someone from entering or using a public establishment simply because of who they are. Nor does anyone have the right to impose their religion on anyone else, especially those in the public marketplace. This is because religion is subjective.

    Also, it is completely false that those in the public marketplace have the right to refuse service to someone in support of their own religious views. The only case in which this would be true is if the customer deliberately made harmful or aggressive comments about the purveyor’s religion or beliefs. You are also forgetting that if this were true, many businesses would have the right to refuse service to people of other races. There are several Christian groups who believe vehemently that white people are a superior race and that all other races are a threat to Christianity. By your logic this means that if any of these people own businesses they have the right to refuse service to someone simply because of their race because serving someone who was dark skinned would violate their Christian ethics.

    The bottom line is that nobody in this world should have to spend their entire life afraid of who is going to pass judgement on them or refuse to help them or provide them with a service. Nobody should be worried about being refused service every time they walk into a store simply because of who they are. Until that day comes, there are no equal rights.

    • Susan Cummings says:

      Hotels, motels, etc. have the right to refuse service to anyone upon their discretion to do so. Religious beliefs are a civil right, as much as sleeping with the same sex is, and not having to be afraid to admit or practice their beliefs are just as much a reality as those of the same sex relationships. People’s relationship to their God is no different than a same sex couple’s relationship to each other. The victim-hood syndrome is no longer effective and the abuses by many same sex or homosexual individuals is self defining. And, yes, a company or business does have the right to discriminate, based on religious beliefs, and that is a Supreme Court decision. It is an expected reasonable discrimination based upon religious beliefs. There does not have to be anything harmful said or directed toward the business owner in order for this to stand. The real problem is many homosexuals feel a sense of privilege, therefore, everyone must accommodate their feelings, and in doing so have violated others civil rights, and it causes an unequal balance in society. No particular group in society is to ever be granted more rights or privileges, it is unconstitutional to do. And, in the event that society has given up certain rights for a minority, and they feel that minority or particular group in society has abused those rights, then those in society that have given up can deem it null and void. That is what will happen, because all that couple had to do was find another baker. But that couple represents a pattern of which many homosexuals have followed, when many others have done the same in other situations. The couple was not prevented from entering the bakery, the couple was not insulted verbally or harmed physically, they were denied a “wedding cake” for a particular reason, but were not denied service all together. I believe they and many others will find out the hard way, that the plight for civil rights and equality was destroyed by those very people who scream it the loudest. Responsibility and respect for others rights will obviously have to taught, and until then, marriage or any other religious association that is demanded from homosexuals from those who practice their religion will cease to exist. People will no longer support that cause because of the abuses, and the obvious insult toward others. They could have received any other product from that establishment, but the wedding cake could not be done, because of the religious practices of those who own and work there. There are other bakers, and there are other products…they are not special because they are homosexual. They are special to one other, but not to others in the same fashion.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Facebook Comments


63 Signatures

  • Hermann Kastner
  • James Thrailkill
  • sheila childs
  • Mal Gaff
  • Terrie Phenicie
  • Nancy Petersen
  • jeff hopkins
  • Holly Hall
  • Marianne Oelman
  • Frédérique Pommarat
1 of 6123...6
Skip to toolbar