--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- John Bickley: This episode is brought to you by LifeLock. When you visit the doctor, you probably hand over your insurance, your ID, and contact details. It's just one of the many places that has your personal info. And if any of them accidentally expose it, you could be at risk for identity theft. LifeLock monitors millions of data points a second. If you become a victim, they'll fix it, guaranteed, or your money back. Save up to 40% your first year at LifeLock.com slash podcast. Terms apply.
--:-- [Music transitions to a brief pause]
--:-- John Bickley: For 12 years, Colorado cake shop owner Jack Phillips has been embroiled in bruising legal battles with the state and an activist attorney to uphold his First Amendment right to not create messages that violate his religious beliefs. A recent ruling by the Colorado Supreme Court in Phillips' favor may be the end of that lengthy legal saga. In this episode, we sit down with the chief legal counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, which has been representing Phillips, to discuss the conclusion and implications of the free speech case.
--:-- Georgia Howe: It's Saturday, October 19th, and this is an extra edition of Morning Wire. Over 38,000 businesses have future-proofed their operations with NetSuite by Oracle, the number one cloud ERP. It brings accounting, financial management, inventory, and HR into one fluid platform. With real-time insights and forecasting, you're peering into the future with actionable data. When you're closing the books in days, not weeks, you're spending less time looking backwards and more time on what's next. Download the CFO's guide to AI and machine learning at netsuite.com slash morningwire. This guide is free to you at netsuite.com slash morningwire. Again, that's netsuite.com slash morningwire.
--:-- [Music transitions to a brief pause]
--:-- John Bickley: Joining us now is Jim Campbell, Chief Legal Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom. Jim, thank you so much for coming on.
--:-- Jim Campbell: Thank you.
--:-- John Bickley: Now, Jack has been in court fighting for his freedom of speech for 12 years now, during which time he's faced several lawsuits. ADF has represented him over the course of the years. First, can you give us a brief history of those lawsuits? Who filed them and what were their motivations?
--:-- Jim Campbell: So the first lawsuit was filed back in 2012, and it was filed by two gentlemen that went into Jack Phillips' shop and asked for a custom wedding cake celebrating a same-sex union. He declined that request because he couldn't do it in good conscience, celebrate that message. And they filed a discrimination complaint with the state of Colorado. The state of Colorado then brought charges against Jack. And that case went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2018 when the court issued a ruling that found that the state acted with hostility towards Jack's faith and it threw out the case that was brought against him. So that was the first case.
--:-- John Bickley: The second case actually started the first day that the Supreme Court announced it was gonna hear that first case. There was an attorney in Colorado that had heard the news and called Jack Shop and asked him to create a custom pink and blue cake to symbolize and celebrate a gender transition Jack declined to make that cake because again that message celebrating a gender transition was something he couldn in good conscience do So then that attorney that made that phone call filed another discrimination complaint against Jack. And that case started then when the state of Colorado picked it up and brought charges against Jack. Rather than sit back and allow that to happen, Jack filed a lawsuit against the state in federal court for again acting with hostility towards his faith. And then after a few months, the state agreed to settle that case. And then the third case started, which was another lawsuit by that same attorney that requested the cake celebrating the gender transition. And then that was the case that was just decided recently by the Colorado Supreme Court.
--:-- Jim Campbell: What do we know about this activist lawyer who brought these two cases against him?
--:-- Jim Campbell: Well, this activist lawyer first called Jack Shop back in 2012 when news first broke about his decision not to create the cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. This individual called the shop back then and called Jack a hypocrite and referred to Jack as a bigot. And then you fast forward six years later and the request is then brought asking for a pink and blue cake celebrating a gender transition. and then right around that same time that attorney made another request for a cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana. So one thing that's very clear is this attorney does not like Jack Phillips and is trying to harass Jack Phillips and make his life difficult.
--:-- John Bickley: Can you unpack that for us a bit more?
--:-- Jim Campbell: Yeah. So the U.S. Supreme Court back in 2018 found that the state of Colorado is acting with hostility towards Jack's faith, and it pointed to a couple different things. The first is that when the state was reviewing Jack's case, there were a number of government officials that disparaged his beliefs and compared his beliefs to the beliefs of people that basically instituted the Holocaust. And the Supreme Court also found that Jack was being treated differently than other cake artists in the state. So there were other cake shops that were asked to create cakes that were either denigrating LGBT messages, and they declined to do so, and the state didn't punish them. But when Jack declined to create a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding, he was punished. So the Supreme Court said that this unequal treatment and these disparaging comments about Jack's faith showed that the state of Colorado was acting with hostility towards his beliefs.
--:-- John Bickley: All right. So now all these years later, we have the Colorado Supreme Court ruling and many people are saying, look, this is the end of the legal battle against Jack Phillips. What exactly did the Supreme Court rule and is it really the end?
--:-- Jim Campbell: So the Colorado Supreme Court found that this attorney that brought the lawsuit did so using the wrong procedure. So they kicked the case out for that procedural reason. We hopeful that this is the end of the road for Jack that people will leave him alone that the government of Colorado will leave him alone that activists in the state will stop harassing him with requests simply to gin up lawsuits to be able to bring against him. But ultimately, we have to wait and see.
--:-- John Bickley: I mean, our position is enough is enough. Let's leave Jack alone and let him live his life consistent with his religious beliefs.
--:-- Jim Campbell: And the other thing that a lot of people miss about Jack is that Jack serves everyone. He serves all customers. he serves all people, but he can't create a cake that expresses all messages. If a message conflicts with his religious beliefs, he can't do that, but he'll serve everyone. He serves people from the LGBT community. That's not an issue for him. It's only when someone, anyone, asks for something expressing a message that he disagrees with.
--:-- John Bickley: Is there any chance that this ruling is appealed?
--:-- Jim Campbell: This ruling cannot be appealed because it is a question of Colorado state law and the Colorado Supreme Court as the highest authority on that issue. So this case is final, and Jack hopefully can now put behind him 12 years of nonstop litigation against him.
--:-- John Bickley: Now, you guys have obviously worked closely with Jack over these years. How has this impacted him personally? Has this done a lot of damage financially and professionally?
--:-- Jim Campbell: It has undermined his business in many ways. He was forced to give up his wedding business as a result of the first case, and he still hasn't brought that back. So it has been difficult from a financial perspective because the wedding aspect of his business was a significant part. It's also been hard on him and his family personally because they've experienced death threats, hostility, people coming into their shop and yelling very, very hateful messages at them. So that's been difficult. But in the end, one thing that Jack always talks about is that this has really drawn his family closer and it has given them an appreciation in their faith in a way that they didn't have before. So there certainly has been some good that has come of it, but 12 years of your life just absolutely devoured by litigation and activists coming after you and state officials acting with hostility towards your faith is sure to take its toll.
--:-- John Bickley: The legacy media has covered these cases at times over the course of the years. Do you feel that there's anything that's been missing from their coverage? What has not been emphasized enough about the nature of these cases?
--:-- Jim Campbell: They want to make this a story about Jack not serving people when it's really a story about Jack not wanting to express and celebrate certain messages. That's something that is absolutely lost when the media, many in the media, talk about Jack's case. And that's something that we try to be very, very clear about. Jack serves everyone. Doesn't matter who you are. The question is, what are you asking him to communicate through that custom cake? And if it's a message that conflicts with his beliefs, then it's not something he's able to do.
--:-- John Bickley: Does this string of cases impact precedent in terms of legal expectations for people across the country in any way?
--:-- Jim Campbell: I think one of the cases that's in the background in all of these matters is one that was decided by the U.S. Supreme Court just last year called 303 Creative. And the 303 Creative case involved a graphic designer And in that case the graphic designer objected to creating a custom web page celebrating a same wedding And the Supreme Court said that the state of Colorado couldn't force her to do that. That principle is very, very important. And it's a principle that provides lasting protection, not only for graphic designers like the one in that case, but also for custom cake artists like Jack Phillips, as well as wedding photographers and many others.
--:-- John Bickley: So I think that that case, 303 Creative, provides significant ongoing protection for creative professionals that want to operate consistent with their beliefs and don't want to be forced to express messages that they disagree with. But in terms of this decision from the Colorado Supreme Court in Jack's most recent case, it really just decides a question of Colorado state procedure, but it's the 303 creative decision that provides that lasting protection.
--:-- John Bickley: Now that 303 creative was another one of the cases you guys were involved with. Do you have other cases in the works now that are similar to Jack Phillips' case?
--:-- Jim Campbell: In terms of others ongoing, we have another one right now where we represent a wedding photographer in New York State. She's a wedding photographer that doesn't want to be forced to create images that celebrate events or express messages that conflict with her beliefs. And that case is ongoing there. We represent a wedding photographer in Louisville, Kentucky, who has a similar case where she raises similar arguments that she doesn't want to be forced to express messages that she disagrees with. So this is an ongoing issue. There is more for federal courts to decide. And we're hopeful that they will follow what the U.S. Supreme Court said in 303 creative, which is these creative professionals can't be forced to express messages that they disagree with.
--:-- John Bickley: Final question, stepping back a bit here. What is the larger takeaway in your view from the string of cases against Phillips and their results?
--:-- Jim Campbell: I think it shows that there's a lot of hostility towards people of faith. The government didn't need to pick up this first case and treat Jack differently than it was treating other cake artists, but it did. The only reason that we can come up with for why they would do that is the hostility towards his beliefs. The reason why this activist attorney concocted this request to ask for a custom cake celebrating a gender transition was because of hostility towards Jack's faith. So at the end of the day, I believe what these cases show is that there's a lot of hostility for people that simply want to quietly live their life consistent with their beliefs. And that's unfortunate. And we hope that this is the end of the road for people doing that to Jack Phillips. And we hope more broadly that people throughout our society see that we should be allowing people to live according to their beliefs and we don't need to be harassing them and discriminating against them when they do it.
--:-- John Bickley: Well, Jim, thank you so much for coming on to discuss these important cases.
--:-- Jim Campbell: Thank you.
--:-- John Bickley: That was Jim Campbell, Chief Legal Counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom, and this has been an extra edition of Morning Wire. Bye.
