Who doesn't remember Jack Phillips, the pastry chef from Colorado who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple's wedding, and was dragged away for that, no matter what?

Declan Leary, editor-in-chief of The American Conservative, writes in an opinion piece that even freedom of speech cannot save Jack, and if we continue like this, he will be in court for the rest of his life.

***

The now-famous Colorado pastry chef, who has owned and operated Masterpiece Cakeshop since 1993, first faced the wrath of the rainbow mob a decade ago when he decided not to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple's wedding. Note: In 2012, not even the state of Colorado pretended that the marriage of two men was the same as the marriage of a man and a woman.

After Jack didn't make the cake for them, the gay couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), which disregarded Phillips' Christian faith and issued a vindictive ruling -- well beyond the scope of the complaint -- and he obliged the "bigot" confectioner to not only bake the cake, but

"change [your] corporate policy, provide 'comprehensive training' to staff on discrimination in public accommodations, and report quarterly for the next two years on what steps you have taken to comply and whether you have turned away any prospective customers .”

The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the commission's patently unfair decision.

But instead of complying with the sentence, Jack Phillips stopped baking wedding cakes for good - which he says cost him 40 percent of his income.

In 2018, six years later, the US Supreme Court overturned the CCRC's decision because it failed to treat Phillips' religious beliefs in a neutral manner.

However, Jack's ordeal did not end there. Last week, the Colorado Court of Appeals heard oral arguments Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop , which arose out of a nearly identical case in which the customer, Autumn Scardina, requested a cake — with blue frosting and a pink interior — to celebrate the beginning of her rebirth as a woman.

Mr. Scardina is a lawyer anyway.

And he asked Masterpiece Cakeshop for a "gender transition" cake on the same day the Supreme Court announced it had thrown out the confectioner's previous case. It is clear that this move was intended to stigmatize Phillips as revenge for not confronting his faith.

And the power of the state cannot force a person to confess something he does not believe in; it is a true principle, it is just and must be protected.

Just as it goes without saying that a society in which a person can be forced out of business and then dragged through years of vindictive legal proceedings over and over again for refusing to confront his beliefs is not a society in which anyone can practice their religion freely. That Phillips won a narrow SCOTUS victory is secondary, if not entirely irrelevant.

During his decade-long Odyssey, Jack Phillips only wanted to draw attention to how little he asks for: he does not give his craftsmanship to what he considers immoral celebrations.

You are not asking that these events be banned, just that you do not have to participate in them.

On Wednesday, Phillips co-authored an article in USA Today with Lorie Smith, a graphic designer and website designer in a similar situation. This was emphasized:

“Our affairs are not about what we think about marriage. They are about the freedom of all of us from government oppression. And the right of all of us to our own opinions should be respected, even if we don't always agree."

Jack Phillips begs for the privilege of living together.

Perhaps this is a tactical move advised by his lawyers for PR purposes. Or maybe Jack Phillips is just a man blessed with the patience of saints. However, he will not achieve victory this way, nor will he achieve peace.

American Christians are under constant attack and just want a break; maybe they should form a club…

They won't leave Jack Phillips alone. They can't leave him alone. It represents a world view that is diametrically opposed to their own and must be eradicated if they hope to hold power.

There are things in which society tolerates disagreement, survives, even thrives. A party can tolerate strife, but not if there is no consensus about the nature of man and the relationships that define him.

An alternative vision of marriage is necessarily an alternative vision of society itself.

And that is why the Court refused to answer the fundamental question in the original Phillips case.

True determination requires more than they can give—that is, more than they are willing to give. Not only radical legal, but also religious and political changes are needed. And that requires the Court to recognize that marriage is not one way or another, at will, and that trading the building blocks of civilization for straw bales was a grave mistake.

But that won't happen.

So Jack Phillips will sit in court until the day he dies. And it still won't be enough for either side.

Featured image: Alliance Defending Freedom / CNA