Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Colorado goes after Masterpiece Cakeshop again – this time over “gender transition” cake

Colorado goes after Masterpiece Cakeshop again – this time over “gender transition” cake

Cakeshop files federal lawsuit: “It is now clear that Colorado will not rest until Phillips either closes Masterpiece Cakeshop or agrees to violate his religious beliefs”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oLMBT6zNgN8

When Masterpiece Cakeshop won its case on June 4, 2018, in the U.S. Supreme Court over refusal to bake a cake celebrating a gay wedding, many people assumed it was a win for religious freedom and free speech (the right not to have government compel your speech).

The cake shop did not refuse to sell cakes to gays, it simply didn’t want to prepare a custom cake with a specific message on it which it believed was contrary to the owner’s religious beliefs. But as we covered at the time, the Supreme Court decision was tailored to bias against the cake shop in the Colorado administrative process. Justice Kennedy authored the 7-2 opinion:

“The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” the majority opinion said.

“While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other member of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

The decision left an opening large enough for the state arguably to go after Masterpiece Cakeshop or others provided the process was fair. That would await the next test case.

The next test case was set up a year before the Supreme Court decision.

On June 26, 2017, the very same day the Supreme Court agreed to take the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, Attorney Autumn Scardina called  the cake shop to request a “gender transition” cake. The cake shop declined, so on July 20, 2017, Scardina filed a complaint, with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission:

I believe I was unlawfully discriminated against because of my protectcd class(es) in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). 1.) On or about June 26. 2017, I was denied full and equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation. Specifically, the Respondent refused to prepare my order for a cake with pink interior and blue exterior, which I disclosed was inttended for the celebration of my transition from male to female. Furthermore. 1hc Respondent indicated to me that to prepare such a cake would be against their religious beliefs. 2.) I believe I was discriminated against because of my protected class(cs).

It appears that Colorado waited for the Supreme Court ruling in the wedding cake case, because it was not until June 28, 2018, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission issued a finding of probable cause. The agency provided the following factual recitation of what happened:

Under the authority vested in me by C.R.S. 24-34-306 (2), I conclude from our investigation that there is sufficient evidence to support the Complainant’s claim of discrimination. As such, a Probable Cause determination is hereby issued….

On or about June 26, 2017, the Complainant contacted the Respondent to order a cake and spoke with Debi Phillips (“D. Phillips”) (female), Co-Owner. The Complainant contends that she requested a custom birthday cake. D. Phillips acknowledges that the Complainant called and requested a custom cake, but asserts that based on their conversation, it was not clear that she was requesting a birthday cake. D. Phillips states that she solicited details about the Complainant’s wishes for the cake, including the date it was needed, the size, and desired flavors. The Complainant responded that she would need the cake by July 6, 2017, needed it to serve 6-8 people, and wanted the cake to have a blue exterior and a pink interior. The Complainant asserts that she “explained that the design was a reflection of the fact that [she] transitioned from male-to-female and that [she] had come out as
transgender on [her] birthday.” D. Phillips states that after the Complainant informed her that the cake was “to celebrate a sex-change from male to female,” she instructed the Complainant that the Respondent would not make the requested cake. At this point, the phone call ended….

Shortly thereafter, the Complainant called the Respondent again and spoke with Lisa Eldfrick (“Eldfrick”) (female), Service Representative. The Complainant states that she told the person who answered, Eldfrick, that she had just called and was
disconnected. She asserts that she told Eldfrick that she “was calling to order a birthday cake and that [she] wanted it to be blue on the outside and pink on the inside because [her] birthday was the same day as the day [she] came out as transgender.” Eldfrick asserts that she informed the Complainant that the Respondent would not fulfill this request. The evidence indicates that the Complainant questioned the Respondent’s policies and that Eldfrick ended the phone call without responding to the Complainant’s inquiries. Jack Phillips (male), Owner, who admittedly makes all final business decisions for the Respondent, affirms this position, contending that the Respondent will not create custom cakes that address the topic of sex-changes or gender transitions. He contends that he will not support a message that “promote[s] the idea that a person’s sex is anything other than an immutable God-given biological reality.”

The Respondent asserts that it declines to make more than two to five custom cakes per week, due to time constraints. The Respondent also states that it refuses to make custom cakes for other expressions that it deems to be objectionable.

The agency then found probable cause, citing the language quoted above from the Supreme Court decision:

The Complainant is a member of protected classed based on her sex (female) and transgender status (gender identity). On or about June 26, 2017, the Complainant sought goods and service from the Respondent by requesting a custom cake. The
Complainant was a qualified recipient of the services by the Respondent. An employee of the Respondent initially indicated that she was willing to assist the Complainant with this request, however, when the Complainant requested a blue exterior and a pink interior, explaining that the design reflected the Complainant’s gender transition from male to female, the Respondent refused to provide the requested service to the Complainant. The Respondent asserts that it will not provide the service of creating cakes that “promote the idea that a person’s sex is anything other than an immutable God-given biological reality.” The evidence thus demonstrates that the refusal to provide service to the Complainant was based on the Complainant’s transgender status. A claim of discriminatory denial of full and equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation has been established. As asserted by the Supreme Court, “It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions are offered to other members of the public.” Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. _ (2018).

Alliance Defending Freedom, which successfully litigated the prior case, has filed suit.

In a press release ADF writes, Hostility unabated: Colorado seeks to punish cake artist Jack Phillips again:

Although the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that Colorado cannot treat cake artist Jack Phillips differently than others, state officials have continued to do just that in response to a more recent complaint filed against him. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Phillips and his cake shop filed a federal lawsuit late Tuesday against those officials for doubling down on their anti-religious hostility.

On June 26, 2017, the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to take up Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, an attorney asked Phillips to create a cake designed pink on the inside and blue on the outside, which the attorney said was to celebrate a gender transition from male to female. Phillips declined the request because the custom cake would have expressed messages about sex and gender identity that conflict with his religious beliefs. Less than a month after the Supreme Court ruled for Phillips in his first case, the state surprised him by finding probable cause to believe that Colorado law requires him to create the requested gender-transition cake.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him—something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do. Neither Jack nor any other creative professionals should be targeted by the government for living consistently with their religious beliefs.”

The Introduction to the Complaint (pdf.)(full embed below) argues that the cake shop was targeted by the claimant/lawyer and Colorado (emphasis added):

1. The U.S. Constitution stands as a bulwark against state officials who target people—and seek to ruin their lives—because of the government’s anti-religious animus. For over six years now, Colorado has been on a crusade to crush Plaintiff Jack Phillips (“Phillips”) because its officials despise what he believes and how he practices his faith.1 After Phillips defended himself all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court and won, he thought Colorado’s hostility toward his faith was over. He was wrong. Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him, in direct conflict with the Supreme Court’s ruling in his favor. This lawsuit is necessary to stop Colorado’s continuing persecution of Phillips.

2. Phillips is a Christian and expert cake artist who owns and operates a small family business, Plaintiff Masterpiece Cakeshop Incorporated (“Masterpiece Cakeshop”). Both Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop serve everyone. All people—no matter who they are, what they believe, or what protected characteristics they have—are welcome in Phillips’s shop and may purchase anything available for sale. But as a devout man of faith, Phillips cannot create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in conflict with his religious beliefs.2 When a customer asks him to create such a cake, he cannot do it, no matter who requests it. Conversely, when someone asks Phillips to design a cake expressing a message or celebrating an event that is not contrary to his faith, he will create it, no matter who requests it. For exercising his faith this way, Colorado has doggedly pursued Phillips, turning his life upside down.

* * *

5. After six grueling years, the Supreme Court vindicated Phillips in a 7-to-2 decision. It declared that Colorado acted with “clear and impermissible hostility toward [his] sincere religious beliefs.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1729 (2018) (“Masterpiece”). The Supreme Court held that the state manifested its anti-religious hostility by “disparag[ing]” Phillips’s religion, “describing it as despicable,” and enforcing a double standard that harshly punishes Phillips while exonerating other cake artists who similarly decline requests for cakes with messages they deem objectionable. Id. at 1729-31.

6. In the meantime, some Colorado citizens, emboldened by the state’s prosecution of Phillips, have targeted him. On the same day that the Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’s case, a Colorado lawyer called his shop and requested a cake designed with a blue exterior and pink interior, which the caller said would visually depict and celebrate a gender transition. Throughout the next year, Phillips received other requests for cakes celebrating Satan, featuring Satanic symbols, depicting sexually explicit materials, and promoting marijuana use. Phillips believes that some of those requests came from the same Colorado lawyer.

7. Phillips declined to create the cake with the blue and pink design because it would have celebrated messages contrary to his religious belief that sex—the status of being male or female—is given by God, is biologically determined, is not determined by perceptions or feelings, and cannot be chosen or changed. A mere 24 days after Phillips prevailed in the Supreme Court, Colorado told him that he violated Colorado law by declining to create that cake. In so doing, the state went back on what it told the Supreme Court in its Masterpiece briefing—that its public accommodation law allows Phillips to decline to create cakes with pro-LGBT designs or themes. Br. for Resp’t Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n at 35, Masterpiece, 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018) (No. 16-
111) (U.S. Oct. 23, 2017). And by citing the Masterpiece decision as support for the state’s renewed efforts to harass Phillips, Colorado ignored the Supreme Court’s numerous references to the state’s anti-religious bias and hostility.

8. 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.

The Complaint focuses on the message that was demanded of the cake shop:

184. After the lawyer disclosed the design and message of the desired cake, Masterpiece Cakeshop politely declined the request because Phillips cannot in good conscience express the messages that the cake would have communicated (i.e., that sex can be changed, that sex can be chosen, and that sex is determined by perceptions or feelings) or celebrate the event that the cake would have commemorated (i.e., the announcement of a change from one sex to the other based on perceptions and feelings).

185. Phillips would not create a custom cake that expresses those messages for any customer, no matter the customer’s protected characteristics.

186. Masterpiece Cakeshop did not decline this request because of the customer’s transgender status or other protected characteristic. Rather, it declined the request because of the messages that the cake would have expressed.

187. When Masterpiece Cakeshop told the lawyer that it could not create the requested cake, the lawyer asked the shop’s representative to repeat that statement so that someone listening over the speaker phone could hear it.

188. Masterpiece Cakeshop offered to create a different custom cake for the lawyer or to sell the lawyer any of the pre-made items available for purchase in the shop.

* * *

199. The Division acknowledged Masterpiece Cakeshop’s position that it declined to create that custom cake because Phillips did not want to express through his cake art “the idea that a person’s sex is anything other than an immutable God-given biological reality.” Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc., Charge No. CP2018011310, at 3 (Colo. Civil Rights Div. June 28, 2018) (Ex. A).

200. But the Division ignored Masterpiece Cakeshop’s message-based reason for declining to create the cake; instead, the Division concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop declined to create the cake “based on [the lawyer’s] transgender status.” Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc., Charge No. CP2018011310, at 4 (Colo. Civil Rights Div. June 28, 2018) (Ex. A).

* * *

212. As a general matter, if a discrimination complaint is filed against a Colorado cake artist for declining to create a custom cake expressing a message he or she opposes, Colorado defers to the cake-shop owner’s message-based objection and, consistent with what state law requires, does not “presume” that the owner discriminated against the customer based on his or her protected status. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-305(3).

213. But if a discrimination complaint is filed against Phillips for declining to create a custom cake expressing a message that conflicts with his faith, Colorado rejects his message-based objection and presumes that he discriminated against the customer based on his or her protected status

How does this end?

In the Supreme Court, again.

With Justice Kennedy off the bench, and assuming Kavanaugh is confirmed, the Court will not be constrained to reach a wishy-washy consensus decision that leaves huge holes in constitutional protections against compelled speech that violates religious beliefs of the compelled speaker.

————————-

Masterpiece Cakeshop Federal Court Complaint (Gender Transition Case) by Legal Insurrection on Scribd

[Featured Image via YouTube]

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

I really despise these people. If I lived in Colorado , I’d be fat because I’d buy a cake a week at this man’s shop.

    notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to labrat. | August 15, 2018 at 10:25 am

    Lots of cake with lots of Sam Adams beer.

      You mean the beer company that decided to remove financial support for the annual St. Patrick’s Day parade in Boston because the parade organizers declined participation by a group known for celebrating homosexuality, THAT beer?

        notamemberofanyorganizedpolicital in reply to Edward. | August 15, 2018 at 11:29 am

        See the Professor’s earlier post today.

        The Professor knows better than I do.

          So supporting Trump today overcomes a decision to end financial support for the nation’s largest St. Patrick’s Day parade a few years back because the parade organizers declined participation of a homosexual activist group. Seems to me that both are politically driven: stop support for the parade in 2014, after almost ten years of support, to show support for homosexuals under Obama, say nice things about Trump when he puts money in your pocket.

          One is an action, the other words.

        casualobserver in reply to Edward. | August 15, 2018 at 12:43 pm

        Oh, so I see you are saying that censorship and punishment for the wrong views is fully acceptable. Good to see the left has trained you well.

          ??? Is my pointing out the action of the company CEO and the reason for that action and perhaps providing encouragement to others to refuse to buy the beer censorship and punishment? Or did you just not understand the intent of my comment? Personally I wouldn’t buy the beer on a bet, but it’s my right to make that decision.

          Now that I have read the article I previously skipped about the CEO’s saying something nice in 2018 about Trump for giving him more money, I suspect you linked my position over the 2014 action to the current issue. Two different articles (Masterpiece here and the comment about drinking lots of the beer vs. the article about the CEO’s comments appreciating Trump’s tax cut) and two different times.

        alaskabob in reply to Edward. | August 15, 2018 at 1:21 pm

        Declined is the word…not forced to remove funding.

          Edward in reply to alaskabob. | August 16, 2018 at 11:18 am

          I could be misreading your comment. I wrote the parade organizers declined participation of the group. That (parade organizer’s) decision resulted in the beer company CEO stating the decision was the proximate cause of the removal of financial support for the parade. Nowhere did I say any entity was forced to do anything. I no longer recollect if the removal of financial support caused the organizers to fold and allow the homosexual activists to participate, though that wouldn’t surprise me.

    david7134 in reply to labrat. | August 15, 2018 at 5:25 pm

    You do know that Colorado is now populated by immigrants from California, who moved there after they destroyed their home state.

assemblerhead | August 15, 2018 at 9:48 am

Another militant ‘confused-about-gender’ on a crusade.

Backlash is going to start getting noticeable.

They more they persecute … the more people who will NOT support or approve of them.

Keep this story in mind, people, when your local government wants to pass laws regarding special class protections.

    Milhouse in reply to GTL. | August 15, 2018 at 6:06 pm

    This isn’t about “special class protections”, which don’t exist in this country. It isn’t even about forbidding discrimination on specific grounds; the baker is perfectly willing to deal with homosexuals, transsexuals, pagans, whatever. The only thing he won’t do is make a cake conveying a message he disagrees with, which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission admits is completely legal, but it keeps on ignoring the facts in evidence and dishonestly pretending that is not what he’s doing. There is no defense against a quasi-judicial authority that simply lies, which is why he is now suing it. Assuming the court before which this case comes is honest, this should be a slam dunk.

      I read the decision in full before forming a final opinion. What you say ought to be true. What the Commission says is 180 degrees opposite. Essentially… the Commission holds that there is no such thing as religious belief. There is no possibility that refusing a transgender customer could be based on anything but the customer being transgender based on nothing more than the fact that there was still time to bake her cake that week. They have wiped the very concept of religious belief out of legal consideration and out of existence.

      (This means, incidentally, a straight person could have obtained a transgender or gay or lesbian cake from this baker.)

        Milhouse in reply to JBourque. | August 15, 2018 at 7:38 pm

        The commission doesn’t deny that religious beliefs exist. It says they’re irrelevant, which is true. Unless Colorado has a RFRA they don’t entitle someone to discriminate, no matter how strong they are. If the baker’s beliefs did indeed forbid him from selling cakes to homosexuals or transsexuals he’d be SOL, and the commission would be right to go after him.

        Where the commission goes wrong is (1) in pretending that discrimination against the occasion or the idea is the same thing as discrimination against the person. But if that were all the Supreme Court would have had to decide whether this is indeed so. The commission’s second error (2) is in its blatant animus to religion, as evidenced by its holding Masterpiece to standards it does not apply to everyone else.

          I’m not saying they said such beliefs don’t exist, I’m saying they’re acting in a way indistinguishable from such. If the baker is a man without religious belief and without a conscience, then there really isn’t any justification for his behavior except bigotry because he can’t possibly have an objection to the message. In fact, given the logic of the decision, I don’t think they believe anyone can. Hence, any non-compliance – by anyone – is bigotry.

          This is more pernicious than the simple fact they made a joke of the process. They didn’t argue that he can’t have an honest disagreement – they asserted that the evidence was overwhelming and he was guilty. The end. I’d be aghast if any judge made such a decision.

          Milhouse in reply to Milhouse. | August 16, 2018 at 3:19 am

          I don’t think you’re getting it. Suppose he had a sincere religious belief that he should not sell cakes to homosexuals. You would surely agree that this would be irrelevant, and he would legally have to sell the cake or go out of business. The commission is pretending that this is the situation. They’re not seeing the difference between refusing to sell to homosexuals and refusing to create a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding, between refusing to sell to transsexuals and refusing to create a cake celebrating a transition. And as the Supreme Court found, they’re doing it to him and only to him, because they hate his religion.

      Subotai Bahadur in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 7:03 pm

      Assuming the court before which this case comes is honest, this should be a slam dunk.

      Given the pre-hostilities condition of our country, the assumption may be premature and unwarranted.

Dude! Bake the cake. But first, watch “The Help.”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaWfoNPDz74

Colorado state law prohibits discrimination based on:
Race.
Color.
National origin.
Religion.
Sex (including pregnancy, childbirth, and related medical conditions)
Disability: Physical, mental, or learning.
Age (40 and older)
Sexual orientation (including perceived sexual orientation)

I don’t understand. Colorado prohibits discrimination against someone because of their religious beliefs, but then discriminates against a business owner because of his religious beliefs.

Are some protected classes more important than others? Why don’t they give rankings of the classes, in order of importance?

    It’s easy to be confused when they leave out some of the standards. You see, to liberals, Christianity is not a religious belief. It’s more of an excuse for white supremacy or something. The only religious beliefs that are actually religious beliefs (worthy of protection) are atheism, abortion extremism and islam.

    Understand now?

    Edward in reply to rinardman. | August 15, 2018 at 11:18 am

    “Are some protected classes more important than others?”

    Absolutely. Any group which tends to vote Democrat significantly more than Republican is a valuable protected class, others not so much – if at all. Those people of Jewish faith aren’t considered even though they tend to vote Democrat much more frequently. Why that is so, other than simply because of antisemitism, escapes me.

    buckeyeminuteman in reply to rinardman. | August 15, 2018 at 12:28 pm

    All animals are equal. But some animals are more equal than others.

    guyjones in reply to rinardman. | August 15, 2018 at 12:56 pm

    The legislators need to amend the statute, to clarify that the only religion whose adherents’ beliefs will be protected, is Islam.

    Because, from where I’m sitting, Leftist and Dumb-o-crats are pointedly exempting Islam from all of their anti-religion fervor, burnished as it is with a protective sheen of faux victimhood.

      Close The Fed in reply to guyjones. | August 15, 2018 at 1:53 pm

      They’re afraid of islam. Just like the rest of us, or I’d be posting in my real name.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to guyjones. | August 15, 2018 at 8:44 pm

      Actually, since Islam is more about law and governance, it needs to not be treated as a religion under American law. It should be classified as a cult.

    Milhouse in reply to rinardman. | August 15, 2018 at 6:30 pm

    I don’t understand. Colorado prohibits discrimination against someone because of their religious beliefs, but then discriminates against a business owner because of his religious beliefs.

    The Colorado Civil Rights Commission denies that it is doing that. It claims to be treating him exactly the same way it would treat anyone else who behaved as he did. The Supreme Court has already called BS on it once, and will surely not hesitate to do it again if necessary.

    Let’s get some things straight first, because there is some confusion in this area. It is not religious discrimination to expect religious people to obey the same laws as everyone else, even if it offends their religion. Nor does the free exercise clause forbid it.

    For instance, suppose a state were to ban circumcision. If the legislature was motivated by hostility to Jews, or to Moslems, or to religion in general, then this would be unconstitutional and it would be struck down. But if the legislation was motivated by a genuine belief that circumcision is wrong, then although the constitution would permit the state to make exemptions for religious circumcisions, it would not require this. If the state chose not to, Jews and Moslems would just have to take their children elsewhere to circumcise them, or else break the law and take the risk of being caught. Enforcing against them the same law that applies to everyone else would be wrong, unfair, and un-American, but it would not be religious discrimination or a violation of the free exercise clause.

    Now the way the Colorado Civil Rights Commission perversely sees it, when Masterpiece was unaware that the couple getting married were the same sex, or that the “birthday girl” used to be a boy, it was willing to create a cake for the occasion, but on finding these things out it decided not to, therefore it is discriminating against them purely on the basis of their sex, sexual orientation, or transition. But that clearly isn’t what Masterpiece is doing, because it remains willing to do other custom work for the same customers, despite now knowing their status. It’s discriminating not against the customers but against the occasion, and there’s no law against that.

“It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions are offered to other members of the public.”
_______________

The terms and conditions that are offered to other members of the public by Masterpiece are that they don’t bake custom cakes celebrating gay “weddings” or “transgender” coming-outs or Halloween or any other events that offend the owner’s religious beliefs.

This man-pretending-to-be-a-woman lawyer who filed the complaint is not asking for equal treatment from Masterpiece, he is asking for special treatment.

The SCOTUS refused to issue a strong opinion acknowledging Americans’ First Amendment right not to be coerced by the state into creating expressions that violate their religious beliefs. So Colorado, and its gaystapo accomplices there, will continue to engage in lawfare against Masterpiece (and any other Christian vendors who dare to try and conduct their business in compliance with their religious beliefs), until they destroy the business.

    And if the law goes against them again (as it should), or if they just get impatient waiting, he can expect a molotov cocktail through his front window. Because of tolerance.

    Milhouse in reply to Observer. | August 15, 2018 at 6:37 pm

    This man-pretending-to-be-a-woman lawyer who filed the complaint is not asking for equal treatment from Masterpiece, he is asking for special treatment.

    No, he is not asking for special treatment, he is asking for equal treatment. But he is asking for equal treatment for his occasion, not for his person, and the law does not entitle him to that.

    The SCOTUS refused to issue a strong opinion acknowledging Americans’ First Amendment right not to be coerced by the state into creating expressions that violate their religious beliefs. So Colorado, and its gaystapo accomplices there, will continue to engage in lawfare against Masterpiece

    And it will get slapped down on the same grounds as before, still without deciding the underlying question. Because the same anti-religious animus that offended the court the first time is blatantly obvious here. As the Supreme Court said, the CCRC is not enforcing the law, it is persecuting Masterpiece, and it must stop. If it ever brings a case that was not motivated by religious animus, then the court will decide the freedom of expression issue.

I’m curious, is Masterpiece Cakeshop the ONLY place you can get a cake in Colorado?
Of course not, but it is the bakeshop the crusaders go to pick a fight with the owner so they can sue him out of business.
Such petty vindictive people.

    Petty people determined to sue others out of business are far too common. Phelps in Kansas was a good example. Also, I seem to recall one gentleman who was confined to a wheelchair who made out fairly well by stalking every single business in a town and filing suit under ADA for any violation he found, real or imagined.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to georgfelis. | August 15, 2018 at 10:37 am

      There was some lawyer going around the Los Angeles area finding ADA infractions at little mom and pop restaurants, and was willing to “settle” for a few grand here, a few grand there. I’m sure there are others in other cities.

        In a city the size of LA that works out better financially than ambulance chasing and doesn’t require as much effort as the bureaucrats do most of the work for him.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to HamiltonNJ. | August 15, 2018 at 10:30 am

    Better yet: make one from scratch, or go to the sore and get enough cake mix to make the cake as wanted, and some icing mix. Add food coloring to white cake, and you have your interior. Add food coloring, and you have your exterior.

    When I was a youngster, my brother and I would cook up cakes from mix, and come up with some of the most lurid color combinations imaginable. Purple cake with pale green icing, that sort of thing.

    Come on, trannies. Be creative. Save other people the bother.

    Or, are you making trouble because someone is fronting you? I suspect it is this.

    Milhouse in reply to HamiltonNJ. | August 15, 2018 at 6:39 pm

    The transsexual “birthday girl” didn’t even want the cake; s/he wanted only to force Masterpiece to create it.

johnnycab23513 | August 15, 2018 at 10:35 am

I foresee Colorado taxpayers getting fed up with their tax money being spent to buy special privilege for a very few perverts!

We need a vocal, wide-scale boycott against Colorado.

But it will not happen because anyone participating will be destroyed.

So why don’t these trannies and gays sue a Muslim bakery? That should be a hoot to watch.

Are not the voters in Colorado accountable for this behavior by the state?

This goes deeper…. This is about demanding society reaffirm their psychological status as right and acceptable. The new norm is to have no norms at all. Reality is only what they want it to be and good luck trying to figure that one out. I pity them but their militancy can not be excused.

    Matt_SE in reply to alaskabob. | August 15, 2018 at 12:46 pm

    This is a religious war. On one side are the militant progressives and on the other side are the Christians and those who love Western liberty. It remains to be seen if the latter still have the will to fight for their beliefs.

The bigger argument that MUST be fought is this leftist idea than any “open” storefront business is a place of “public accommodation”. This is only required of government offices as they provide necessary and specific services that only government can and should provide. Private businesses have competitors and neither party can force a contract on either party.

    Close The Fed in reply to stl. | August 15, 2018 at 1:58 pm

    Tut, tut, tut. The 60s equal rights bills killed private property rights. NOW you MUST CONFORM.

    Like I wrote the other day, the airlines can’t profile to get rid of the dangerous set…. So I quit flying. Just more of the same here.

Nothing makes me bristle any faster than the concept of “protected” classes of people. In America all people are equal under the Constitution. Giving any class special status should be, by definition, unconstitutional.

    Milhouse in reply to MikeyParks. | August 15, 2018 at 6:53 pm

    It is, and there are no laws, anywhere in the USA, giving any class special protection. Civil rights laws forbid discrimination on specific grounds, not against specific classes. It’s illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, regardless of which race; it’s just as illegal to discriminate against white people as against black ones.

    There are “suspect classes” whose discrimination complaints deserve extra judicial scrutiny, because they’ve historically been targets of discrimination, so it’s more likely that their complaints are valid. “I didn’t get the job because I’m gay” is just more plausible than “I didn’t get the job because I’m straight”. It happens more often, so it’s more likely to be true in any given case, just as in the USA “my car hit a deer” is more likely to be true than “my car hit a kangaroo”. But that’s a matter of proving that the discrimination is happening, not a matter of whether it’s illegal if it is.

      JusticeDelivered in reply to Milhouse. | August 15, 2018 at 9:14 pm

      “it’s just as illegal to discriminate against white people as against black ones.”

      Starting with Obama and since, blacks have organized nationally and been allowed to discriminate, to terrorise, to persecute, to drive unjust prosecutions and otherwise violate people’s civil rights. It is ironic how this has come full circle.

buckeyeminuteman | August 15, 2018 at 12:32 pm

So the claimant who got discriminated against just happens to be a lawyer (who had probably already drafted the lawsuit). If the “silent majority” won’t stand up to crap like this, they’re never going to stand up.

At what point does all this crap become harassment? Can that baker sue the state for harassment?

What we’re seeing is an application to the civil sphere of the lesson of Vietnam: it’s not over if the other side refuses to accept defeat.

There’s only one option left: destruction. The individuals responsible for this must go to prison.

    Matt_SE in reply to Matt_SE. | August 15, 2018 at 12:40 pm

    P.S. I want to make clear that this is part of a trend of general lawlessness and legal nullification.
    We’ve seen it wrt immigration law (sanctuary cities), and we’ve seen it wrt Title IX rulings (universities continue to discriminate).

    It’s like the left has decided that they want a national divorce, and aren’t interested in living by the same laws as the rest of us.

    This is how you get a shooting civil war.

      Rick in reply to Matt_SE. | August 15, 2018 at 1:14 pm

      No convictions from inauguration-day rioting sent a strong message.

      Walker Evans in reply to Matt_SE. | August 16, 2018 at 3:50 am

      I’m ready. Plenty of ammo, a willingness to use it if necessary, and the skill to do so effectively. I try to avoid conflict whenever possible but it is clearly possible that the time is coming when our freedom will depend on our willingness to pay for it in blood. Jefferson was right.

These commissions are structured in such a way that the members are inevitably the perpetually aggrieved. The same is always reflected in their findings.

Could the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission be arrested for conspiracy to deny someone his civil rights?

Her complaint was filed in JULY not June. Please edit this. As it stands, it makes no sense. Why would she file this 6 days before the SCOTUS ruling. Please edit!!!!

Does the Baker have a go fund me page? I would be happy to help out his defense.

Wow, they’re just begging for it, aren’t they?

Wow, they baked the cake, but refused to endorse. Now the government is attempting to compel speech. #HateLovesAbortion

This is a blatant example of the power of the state when it is turned against the individual. The state can steamroll over people, and is inclined to do so in today’s cultural climate. Kavanaugh had better be confirmed!

I don’t get the whole notion of business as presently interpreted. With the exception of such items as life/health, where there is often quite limited availability and sometimes considerable urgency, I thought that conduct of business was the transaction between a willing buyer and a willing seller. I used to (politely and indirectly) encourage people I didn’t like for whatever reason to shop at my competition when I had had enough of them. I wasn’t rude (as I’m sure this fellow wasn’t), nor was I necessarily direct (unless pushed too hard), but I’d suggest that I couldn’t satisfy them, and they’d be much better served by a competitor (whom I happened to loathe, but that was another issue – I figured such folks deserved each other.)
So when did private business transactions, purchases & sales which could be transacted elsewhere, suddenly become obligatory for the seller? And can this same logic be used to force buyers to purchase from particular vendors? Maybe this same logic could be applied to fight BDS?
This all smacks of Political Correctness run amuck. And I’m a liberal. At least I thought I was until I discovered I don’t fit that category, either. Perhaps I’m rational in a totally irrational world?

” We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone “

Make the cake and leave out the sugar.

The Left in their desperation have lost all sense of political tactic which was the main thing that Obama brought to the Progressives. With Obama off the Teleprompter the Progressives ar ebad to doing stupid things like suing the same baker that just won at SCOTUS. Do they think this guy will get LESS sympathy than he did before? I don’t see how they win the midterms. They don’t have a base any larger than they did before and how Independents are going to swing their way just can’t be explained to me sorry.

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend