Image 01 Image 03

Colorado Judge Fines Masterpiece Cakeshop For Refusing To Bake Gender Transition Cake

Colorado Judge Fines Masterpiece Cakeshop For Refusing To Bake Gender Transition Cake

Attorney vows appeal: “Jack Phillips serves all people but shouldn’t be forced to create custom cakes with messages that violate his conscience.” In the meantime, Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop have to bake the cake, or risk further lawsuits and fines.

The last time we checked in on the woke war on Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner Jack Phillips, a state court trial was ongoing, Masterpiece Cake Shop On Trial For Refusing To Bake A “Transition” Cake.

That post summarized the history:

Masterpiece Cake Shop famously won a U.S. Supreme Court case over it’s owner Jack Phillips’ refusal to bake a cake that celebrated a same-sex marriage. Phillips said while he would sell anyone a cake, requiring him to put lettering on it celebrating the marriage violated his religious beliefs and was unconstitutional.

The Supreme Court ruled in his favor, though it didn’t announce any sweeping principles of law.

But it wasn’t over, the cakeshop was sued again by the State of Colorado after the same person requested a “gender transition” cake, Colorado goes after Masterpiece Cakeshop again – this time over “gender transition” cake.

The state eventually dropped the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop wins again – CO drops prosecution for refusal to bake ‘gender-transition cake’, but the woman sued privately, Masterpiece Cakeshop Sued A Third Time, Ostensibly Over “Gender Transition” Cake.

That was the last time we covered the attacks on the cakeshop, but that third case just popped up on the news because it is in trial.

On June 15, 2021, state court judge A. Bruce Jones rendered the Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law (pdf.), imposing a $500 fine for violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Judge rejected the legal defense of freedom of religion and freedom from compelled speech:

In arguing that they should prevail in this matter, Defendants quote the stirring words of
Justice Jackson in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette: “If there is any fixed star
in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be
orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess
by word or act their faith therein.” 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943). But as Defendants also argue,
context matters. In Barnette, government officials insisted that the children of Jehovah’s
Witnesses salute the flag—a basic form of compelled patriotism through symbolic speech. Id. at
627-30. That is quite different than preventing places of public accommodation from discriminating against transgender persons. The anti-discrimination laws are intended to ensure
that members of our society who have historically been treated unfairly, who have been deprived
of even the every-day right to access businesses to buy products, are no longer treated as
“others.” This case is about one such product—a pink and blue birthday cake—and not
compelled speech.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Phillips and the cakeshop, vowed to appeal:

“Jack Phillips serves all people but shouldn’t be forced to create custom cakes with messages that violate his conscience. In this case, an activist attorney demanded Jack create custom cakes in order to ‘test’ Jack and ‘correct the errors’ of his thinking, and the activist even threatened to sue Jack again if the case is dismissed for any reason. Radical activists and government officials are targeting artists like Jack because they won’t promote messages on marriage and sexuality that violate their core convictions. This case and others—including the case of floral artist Barronelle Stutzman, whose petition is pending before the U.S. Supreme Court—represents a disturbing trend: the weaponization of our justice system to ruin those with whom the activists disagree. The harassment of people like Jack and Barronelle has been occurring for nearly a decade and must stop. We will appeal this decision and continue to defend the freedom of all Americans to peacefully live and work according to their deeply held beliefs without fear of punishment.”

Because this case is in state court, the only way it gets to the U.S. Supreme Court is once the Colorado Supreme Court rules, and then only if SCOTUS agrees to hear the case. The prior case was not resolved by SCOTUS on the merits, more on procedural grounds. The conservative majority on SCOTUS, not including John Roberts, has been good on freedom of religion cases involving coronavirus lockdowns, so there may be an appetite to take this one. But it will be a year or two before we find out.

In the meantime, Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop have to bake the cake, or risk further lawsuits and fines.



Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.


He should just agree to decorate the cake and then just put “God Loves Everyone” on it.

    Retired in Chicago in reply to lhw. | June 21, 2021 at 12:51 pm

    God created and loves everyone. Why can’t we all just get along? I mean it’s not like they’re murderers or criminals who robbed old ladies of their pensions. those people may be against his religious beliefs but when it comes right down to it he’s just refusing to make a cake. Is making a cake against his religious beliefs? No, so just make the cake and wish them well. I mean his not making the cake isn’t going to change anything ever so what’s the point. it’s not like he buying gifts are going to the wedding or anything like that. it really comes down to mind your own business do your thing and let someone else do their thing as long as they’re not hurting you.

      You would have him capitulate to every demand? This attitude is the engine that drives the collapse we are facing. He’ll bake the cake, he won’t write the words on the cake. Some may argue that being forced to write words with which one disagrees is hurting someone.
      Not only would the left have prohibited speech forced upon us, it would have compelled speech forced upon us. And you see no harm?

Here we go again, wasn’t this already decided?

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Ironclaw. | June 17, 2021 at 9:01 am

    Yes, it was, but a tyrant in a black dress decided that in fact it was not.

    I’d contract another shop to bake the cake, and then put a substntial markup on it.

    I’d also look into a healthy supply of tar and feathers, and the address of the judge. Not that I am advocating anything nasty or illegal, mind…

      Well, IIRC it was not resolved on constitutional grounds. It was resolved on the basis that the Colorado Department of Touchy Feely (whatever the actual name was) clearly was targeting Jack Phillips, said mean things about him and even denigrated him in their decision that he discriminated against the homosexual couple. So a decision on technical grounds, not the Constitution and not applicable to future cases. Roberts thought he was being real cute by avoiding ruling that the First Amendment precludes discriminating against religious people by forcing them to violate their religious convictions to obtain compliance with anti-discrimination statutes. THAT sort of decision would preclude this type of suit and Roberts didn’t want to upset the Queer lobby by shutting the door on their ability to harass religious people.

    gonzotx in reply to Ironclaw. | June 17, 2021 at 9:13 am

    I know!!!

    Milhouse in reply to Ironclaw. | June 17, 2021 at 9:40 am

    No, it wasn’t.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 2:18 pm

      There you go, getting downticks for stating a fact.

        Brave Sir Robbin in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | June 17, 2021 at 4:27 pm

        What I would like to know is why this is not abuse of process. Plaintiff engaged with Defendant for the express purpose of creating a legal controversy where none had previously existed or would have otherwise not have existed. This seems to me a possible actionable tort by counter-claim. If a judge allows this primary abuse to carry forward, the judge is not blind in the pursuit of “justice.”

      Ironclaw in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2021 at 11:11 am

      You don’t think this was decided last time Mr. Phillips had a case in front of SCOTUS?

        Edward in reply to Ironclaw. | June 19, 2021 at 11:25 am

        It was not, Milhouse is correct. The earlier case was decided on a case specific technicality and not an application of the Constitution. Roberts couldn’t dump on Phillips, but he could gum up the works to allow future cases to harass Phillips and/or other people with religious convictions (a concept foreign to many, if not most (all?), Leftists.

    JusticeDelivered in reply to Ironclaw. | June 17, 2021 at 9:58 am

    It was, laxative would be funny.

      It wasn’t decided. The state simply dropped the case.

        thetaqjr in reply to Milhouse. | June 19, 2021 at 12:01 am

        I appreciate the answer you and others gave to the questions where I asked for examples of states counting votes that should have been shredded.

        “CSS seeks only an accommodation that will allow it to continue serving the children of Philadelphia in a manner consistent with its religious beliefs; it does not seek to impose those beliefs on anyone else.”

        Why is the logic of this decision not applicable to the Denver Cake case?

        I read a bit about strict scrutiny and its relationship to state’s compelling interest. From what I understood, “compelling state interest”, “narrowly tailored means”, and “least restrictive means”, the state has no business not honoring the cake builder’s right not to serve queers, homosexuals, Jews, Episcopalians, ECT, as long as there are viable alternatives. I mean if a willing cakest Is squarely across the street building wedding cakes for anyone during daylight hours, I don’t understand.


          Edward in reply to thetaqjr. | June 19, 2021 at 11:33 am

          You are approaching the problem from a position of a reasonable person. The state, the judge and the activist lawyer filing these complaints all wish to see Jack Phillips broken. There has always been an viable alternative, even the original complaint about celebrating a homosexual “marriage” involved Phillips offering several alternative shops which he believed/knew would take the commission and produce a quality product. Where you err is in failing to understand that the point was not to obtain the cake or be, in any way, reasonable. The fact that the lawyer filing the complaint apparently told Phillips (and counsel presumably) that if the case was abandoned or dropped he would file suit personally again shows this is nothing but a vendetta using the lawfare approach – and the judge didn’t care.

“In the meantime, Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop have to bake the cake, or risk further lawsuits and fines.”

I would guess he is soon to be in jail. After everything that’s happened he doesn’t strike me as a guy who will go against his convictions no matter what the person giving the order is wearing.

It’s difficult to imagine how I would react to the legal and social injustice idiots, perhaps you could encounter a spell of “mistakes” and other problems when preparing and baking an obscene pastry to the freaks specifications? That could happen. Of course, everyone is acting in good faith. Stuff happens!

He must really like Colorado. Because any normal person would sell the shop and move to a sane state.

    It is a pity to see the cancer metastasizing from Californica to Colorado.

    gonzotx in reply to MattMusson. | June 17, 2021 at 10:19 am

    He is a man of conviction and doesn’t want to run out of the state he loves and built his business in by insane wackos.
    Eventually there won’t be any place to run to

Does his shop ship nationwide? May have to order one to support the guy.

Fight fire with fire, this woman who is trying to score points by ruining this mans life should be doxxed.

Bake them a cake with no vanilla…tell them it is an inclusive cake and rejects the notion of vanilla or chocolate.
Finally, raise Hell at halal Subway restaurants and demand pork

    Milhouse in reply to scooterjay. | June 17, 2021 at 9:49 am

    “Sorry, we don’t carry that product”.

    That’s very different from Phllips, who makes his cakes, and can just as easily make one he doesn’t like as one he likes. He’s exercising his first-amendment right not to make it, and he’s 100% right, but he can’t simply say “I don’t carry any cakes like that”. If he were a retailer who bought his cakes ready made then he could.

      UserP in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 10:17 am

      He could’ve made a cake similar to what they ordered but with the writing illegible and the decorations messed up. And then have someone there to make a video when they come in and refuse it.

      scooterjay in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 10:01 pm

      OK, buddy……prance your hindsides into a halal restaurant and ask for bacon on a sub. I know you wont because we both know a large sword would be produced to coerce your infidel ass into not wanting bacon. Thats a wee bit different. ¿Comprende, senior?

        gospace in reply to scooterjay. | June 17, 2021 at 10:51 pm

        Used to be, and probably still are, delis in NYC where you can’t order cheese on your roast beef sub. And there is no ham to be found.

      DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2021 at 1:16 am

      In the original situation of the cake for a gay marriage, I agreed. He can’t make a wedding cake for one (straight) couple and then deny the same to another (gay) couple. But this situation is different. Although he makes cakes, he doesn’t make gender transition cakes, so he can deny them to anyone because he makes them for no one.

        George_Kaplan in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 18, 2021 at 7:54 pm

        It depends how you interpret the situation. It’s true he doesn’t make trans cakes for anyone, but the Left argue there’s no such thing as a trans cake just a pink and blue, or was that blue and pink, cake to be used as a trans expression. They contend the cake has no message, but they want it as a message.

        This actually parallels the homosexual cake where wedding cakes are offered, but not homosexual wedding cakes since that’s a message at odds with Phillips’s conscience and 1st Amendment rights. He’ll serve all customers and sell to all customers, but not be complicit in promoting certain messages.

          George_Kaplan in reply to George_Kaplan. | June 18, 2021 at 7:57 pm

          Oh note the complainant in this case had his order accepted, but as that wasn’t what said complainant wanted, he went on to explain the purpose of the cake – basically to make Phillips complicit in some trans affair. The bakery predictably cancelled the order, and the complainant then launched his campaign to get a ruling against Phillips – as was his objective all along.

        Edward in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 19, 2021 at 11:43 am

        He can make a wedding cake for a “straight” wedding and, because his religious convictions cause him to believe God had ordained marriage to be between a man and a woman*. Thus he can stand on his First Amendment rights and refuse to use his talents to make a cake for a homosexual “wedding”. Note that in the original case he did offer several alternative bakeries who would make the cake desired, but that did not serve the purpose of attacking Phillips, religion and religious people.

        * Actual female of the species, not a male “identifying” as a woman.

          Edward in reply to Edward. | June 19, 2021 at 11:47 am

          Failed to proof read/edit after changing the construction:

          He can make a wedding cake for a “straight” wedding because his religious convictions cause him to believe God had ordained marriage to only be between a man and a woman*. Thus he can…

Why does that move “The Help” always come to mind when I hear about this guy and the progs in Colorado? Sell them “a cake” and while you’re at it, give them some lemonade with a “little wang” to it.

You have to be truly crazy to try to FORCE someone to make you something to eat against their will.

    Edward in reply to Paul. | June 19, 2021 at 11:49 am

    Who said they had any intention of eating the cake had he made it? I’m sure it would surprise the hell out of them if he actually made a cake.

I would bake the cake the way I want and then sue them if they don’t pay. Freedom of speech. Artistic license.

    UserP in reply to r2468. | June 17, 2021 at 9:41 am

    Hey. I was gonna say that!

    Milhouse in reply to r2468. | June 17, 2021 at 9:42 am

    Nope. If it’s not what they ordered they don’t have to pay.

      JDmyrm in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 9:44 am

      Fill it with laxatives, they’re full of shit and could use the the help.

        JusticeDelivered in reply to JDmyrm. | June 17, 2021 at 10:01 am

        The same occurred to me.

        No. Because then the Plaintiffs could then entirely reasonably make a claim that it was an attempt to poison them, or claim some other “consequential damages” by his clearly intentional act to include some foreign matter in the substance of the cake. Or, they might just give it to somebody else, and I’m sure he doesn’t want THAT potential disaster on his conscience.

The judge’s argument seems to show that he is just stupid and didn’t understand the issue.

    UserP in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 10:18 am

    He is probably next of kin to Merrick Garland.

      mailman in reply to UserP. | June 17, 2021 at 10:57 am

      Or related to milhouse.

        DaveGinOly in reply to mailman. | June 18, 2021 at 1:28 am

        I neither upvoted nor downvoted your comment. I didn’t downvote it because it’s funny. I didn’t upvote it because I like Milhouse, and the comment comes across a little mean-spirited.

          daniel_ream in reply to DaveGinOly. | June 19, 2021 at 1:46 am

          A little? Milhouse gets more abuse than Ragspierre ever doled out, for the heinous crime of repeatedly stating what the law and precedent actually say, instead of what a bunch of reactionary populists who want the government to give them free shit want it to say.

          This is a legal blog. Anyone that offended by legal analysis needs to GTFO.

          That’s simply not true! Rags was horrible to people all the time; you may not have seen a lot of it because we had to remove his more horrible posts (as we do those of people who attack Milhouse and vice versa, ditto @mark311, et al.).

          So many people here, including me, respect Milhouse’s take on the legal cases and his efforts (like him, I am not a lawyer, but I enjoy his legal-based postings). Heck, you’re here defending him, as do many others. At least Rags was an actual lawyer and knew what he was talking about when it came to his area of law; he just lost it when Trump got nominated and it went downhill from there.

        starride in reply to mailman. | June 21, 2021 at 7:46 am

        I disagree with Millhouse on a lot of things and his bedside manner sometimes resembles a ogre. But one thing millhouse does well is cut through the BS and get to the point as a matter of law. I would not invite hime home to dinner. But I would listen to his opinion as discussing matters of law.

      The Friendly Grizzly in reply to UserP. | June 17, 2021 at 11:36 am

      Or, Emmett Sullivan.

    ScottTheEngineer in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 1:10 pm

    Is this not the definition of a vexatious litigant?
    I’m interested in you’re opinion.

      Milhouse in reply to ScottTheEngineer. | June 17, 2021 at 1:41 pm

      No, there are no grounds for concluding that the litigant is vexatious. This is the first and only lawsuit s/he has brought against the defendant. That alone stops her from being classed as a vexatious litigant.

      In addition, this action is not brought merely to harass the defendant and burden him with legal costs; the plaintiff actually hopes to win, and this stupid decision validates that, because it shows that s/he can win, provided s/he draws stupid judges. By definition that means the suit is not vexatious.

        DaveGinOly in reply to Milhouse. | June 18, 2021 at 1:36 am

        What if “it” decides to transition back and wants another cake?

        If the Colorado cover-band of the Supremes can read the writing on the stone tablets and they decide that they don’t want to get very publically bench-slapped again by the natioal act Supremes, and they tell this Judge “REVERSED, without comment (now stop making us look bad),” does that then “trans”-form (i would guess now) Ms. “I’m going to sue you again and again until I get the result I want” into a vexatious litigant?

        It may be the first “lawsuit” but it is definitely an ongoing, active campaign of “lawfare” by the plaintiff, which I think somewhat clouds the technical analysis on vexatious status.

Fat_Freddys_Cat | June 17, 2021 at 9:45 am

They really ought to just leave this guy the hell alone. They claim to just want to be left alone to live as their “identity” tells them; they won’t force the lifestyle on anybody they claim, that’s just “fearmongering”. And then they go and do exactly the thing the “fearmongers” said they would do. They’re hurting their own case and just hardening the opposition.

    David Jay in reply to Fat_Freddys_Cat. | June 18, 2021 at 4:53 pm

    That’s why they call these woke individuals “Crybullies”.

    My feelings are not being respected, so you WILL be made to comply.

UnCivilServant | June 17, 2021 at 9:45 am

What year was Freedom of Association killed? I forget.

    2smartforlibs in reply to UnCivilServant. | June 17, 2021 at 9:52 am

    Nov. 2020

    Milhouse in reply to UnCivilServant. | June 17, 2021 at 9:53 am

    This isn’t about freedom of association. He’d be very happy to make this person almost any cake s/he likes, except this one. It’s about the freedom of speech, and his right not to do work he doesn’t want to do.

    Imagine a black person offers you a job. You say “Sure, I’d be happy to work for you”. So he says “Go shovel out my cow shed”, and you say “Sorry, I don’t want to do that. Not for you and not for anybody”. That’s not racial discrimination.

      UnCivilServant in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 10:16 am

      What does that have to do with my question?

        If you can refuse to shovel shit, you should be able to refuse to make a cake. If you refuse to shovel shit, it doesn’t concern whether the person is black or white. You don’t shove shit. Likewise, if you don’t make a certain cake, it doesn’t matter if the customer is gay or not. You wouldn’t make a cake like that for anyone.

        “I will shovel stuff for you, but I don’t shovel shit. I will shovel anything but shit.”
        “I will make a cake for you, not that one. I don’t make cakes like that”.

        So point is, it doesn’t depend on who the person is hiring you. It depends on what type of work you are willing to do. You can’t be forced to do work you don’t like.

          UnCivilServant in reply to UserP. | June 17, 2021 at 11:08 am

          My question was about freedom of association, not the circumstance of the official harassment of the cakeshop.

          UserP in reply to UserP. | June 17, 2021 at 11:16 am

          @ UnCivilServant

          Okay. I’ll let Milhouse explain it to you.

          Milhouse in reply to UserP. | June 17, 2021 at 12:18 pm

          Freedom of Association simply has nothing whatsoever to do with this case.

          As a public accommodation he does not have the freedom to reject customers on grounds that are specifically prohibited by law. And he has no problem with that. For all we know he supports the law. He has declared himself perfectly willing to make a cake for anyone at all. Black, Satanist, gay, “trans”, whatever. He is not prejudiced. But there are certain cakes he won’ t make, for anyone. That’s not freedom of association.

          UnCivilServant in reply to UserP. | June 17, 2021 at 12:25 pm

          Yes, those unconstitutional public accommodation laws are the problem. Dithering over freedom of speech is a sideshow to the actual infringement going on.

          The inability to reject a customer for any reason whatsoever is the problem people are willfully ignoring.

          Freedom of Association has EVERYTHING to do with cases like this.

          Milhouse in reply to UserP. | June 17, 2021 at 1:45 pm

          Your opinion that the anti-discrimination laws are unconstitutional is irrelevant. The supreme court held the opposite, and therefore every lower court in the land is bound by that decision. No judge has the right to disagree. That’s why no case is ever brought about it; it would be frivolous. This case is not about that. And there’s no reason to suppose the defendant even agrees with your position.

          DaveGinOly in reply to UserP. | June 18, 2021 at 1:48 am

          This argument is very similar to one I employed against a local talk show host. He said, by the same standard that would require the baker to make a gay wedding cake, a Muslim butcher asked to butcher a pig would likewise be required to butcher the pig. (And further commented that the Left would be against requiring him to butcher the pig, and in this he was quite correct.) I argued that the Muslim butcher could refuse to butcher the pig. Although he is a butcher, and will gladly butcher a calf or lamb for anyone, he butchers pigs for no one, and therefore could refuse to butcher a pig as something he does for no one.

          And this brings up a subtlety. Although the baker bakes cakes (as the butcher kills animals), they don’t have a “theme” until they’re decorated (even though, in the baking, they may be intended for incorporation into a cake of a specific theme). So although the baker can’t refuse a cake to anyone because he bakes cakes (as the Muslim butcher can’t refuse to butcher for anyone), he can’t be caused to decorate it with any type of theme, so long as he doesn’t decorate cakes with the theme for anyone (as the Muslim butcher can refuse to butcher a pig because he does this for no one). This might seem like splitting hairs, but the pig in the Muslim butcher example agrees with me.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to UnCivilServant. | June 17, 2021 at 11:37 am

    1964 with the Civil Rights Act that declared private businesses on private property to be “public accommodation “.

      I go you one level deeper – businesses are state-licensed. The state can’t discriminate against people in particular ways, therefore none of its creatures (such as licensed business) can discriminate in those ways either. The state can’t empower one of its creatures with authority it does not itself possess.

    henrybowman in reply to UnCivilServant. | June 17, 2021 at 3:08 pm

    Ask Lester Maddox.

2smartforlibs | June 17, 2021 at 9:52 am

How many times is the SCOUT going to have to tell the left to pound sand on this?

    Milhouse in reply to 2smartforlibs. | June 17, 2021 at 9:55 am

    Once would be enough, but it ducked doing that. It didn’t decide the principle, it just said that in going after Phillips the Colorado Human Rights Commission was motivated by illegitimate animus against him. That doesn’t affect the plaintiff in this case.

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | June 17, 2021 at 9:55 am

I would “temporarily” close my shop due to a “family emergency,” and then reopen after the Gender Confusion Transition party occurs.

    There’s no party; and if there were one it has been postponed until after the case. This isn’t some innocent customer who just wants a cake. The order was placed specifically so that he would reject it.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 11:05 am

      Correct. The plaintiff is a transgender activist who is deliberately provoking the cake-maker. This is at least the third complaint, and he (he’s a he no matter if he says he’s a she) vows to continue with the complaints. This is every bit about using the law to compel the cake-maker to bend a knee. The activist, by the way, is a nasty piece of work by everything I’ve read about him.

      lichau in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 6:02 pm

      I would have considerably more respect for the plaintiff had they made the demand of a Muslim baker. Like demand a cake with a depiction of Muhammed on it. Somehow, I suspect the judge (preferring his/her head remain attached) would have ruled differently.

Appears as if the cake doesn’t have to have a taste that would lead to be considered edible nor does it appear that he can’t use his artistic discretion and freedom about how he decorates the cake or adds a message to it.

The nonsense can’t be fixed without fixing the civil rights law to deny freedom of association only in monopoly markets (de facto or de jure).

Otherwise you have freedom of association and there’s no case here.

Freedom of religion is an end-around that wants to grant additional privileges to true believers over us regular people, which isn’t how freedom of association is supposed to work.

Richard Epstein was way ahead of the crowd, Forbidden Grounds The Case against Employment Discrimination laws Harvard 1992

Maureen from Regina | June 17, 2021 at 10:52 am

Bake the cake, doesnt have to be a good tasting cake or a well designed cake. Two can play this silly game. It will not hurt his business as those who dont force him know the quality of his cakes

Think about this. There is a very simple way to stop this absurdity.

Start calling every baker, printer, and artistic product manufacturers in the state and ask them to creat some of the most vile filth imaginable. File a complaint against everyone that refuses. Overload the system and these idiots will see where they are headed.

    stevewhitemd in reply to starride. | June 17, 2021 at 12:24 pm

    Ah, you’ve read Alinsky…

      Yes, we HAVE. I have a very dog-eared copy of ‘Rules for Radicals’ sitting not 10 feet from me on my shelf. I used to write this MUCH more often, but President Trump actually made things tolerable for a while:

      Alinsky Rule Number 4 is in effect.

Quite literally the judge is FORCING this guy to do something against his will. You WILL bake these people a cake with the wording of their choice.

I would think that all those brain dead zombie dumb fucks cheering for this result would have a totally different view of this case if it was a judge forcing a Liberal to admit that Trump was robbed.

This is not about a cake.

The sociopath behind this is simply applying the evil principle that “You will submit to my control or I will destroy you.” That sociopath will likely be surprised when the beloved totalitarian state turns on him/her with the same evil force.

Antifundamentalist | June 17, 2021 at 11:13 am

One thing I do not understand: These cases are almost always presented solely as a First Amendment objection. Why is it not an objection to forced labor? Do we not have a right to choose what jobs we accept? Why should anyone need to provide a reason when they refuse to accept a custom job other than “I don’t want to accept your money?”

    He can’t say “I don’t want to accept your money”. The moment he makes it about the customer he loses. But it isn’t about the customer. He’s completely willing to make the customer any cake that he’s willing to make for anyone else. The cake the customer wants is one that he won’t make for anyone.

    And since his objection is to the message it would convey, and the customer’s entire reason for wanting it is to compel him to convey that message, the most relevant freedom is that of speech.

      stevewhitemd in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 12:32 pm

      Very well said. It’s not about the cake. It’s about the message, and that exactly is what this nasty activist is trying to use to break the baker.

      Antifundamentalist in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 12:54 pm

      That does not make sense to me. Are we enslaved or are we entitled to make decisions for ourselves? It is about the job and the worker and whether or not a person can be forced to work against their will. We keep making it about someone else but at the core of it, it isn’t. Am I a slave to the state or am I a free person? It should not matter if I don’t want to do the job because it goes against my personal ethics, or if I don’t want to do the job because I think it is in poor taste, or if I don’t want to do the job because I think it exceeds my skill level, or if I don’t want to do the job because I have vacation planned for that day, or if I don’t want to do the job because you look like the man who raped my sister and being around you is not good for either of us. It is about the right to say NO – reasons why being totally secondary.

        Except that if you are a public accommodation then you can’t turn down customers on specific grounds specified by law. Like it or not, that’s the law of the land, and there’s no indication that Mr Phillips has any problem with it. He may very well support it. He’s certainly not violating it. And that’s why this case isn’t about that.

          tom in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 5:02 pm

          Forcing someone to work against their will.
          IS SLAVERY

          I don’t give a fast flyin’ what you say about accommodation.

        Colonel Travis in reply to Antifundamentalist. | June 17, 2021 at 1:53 pm

        We don’t have a blanket right to say no. That’s how you get separate water fountains and bathrooms and hotels. We have obligations in a society built on freedom and liberty.

        What you are arguing is the obverse of the coin held by this tyrant suing the cake guy. Customer Tranny Cake demands equality by forcing others to yield against their wishes to them. Why should the reasons for saying no matter? MAKE ME THE CAKE.

        The cake guy doesn’t make tranny cakes for some and not for others. The cake doesn’t make tranny cakes, period. Go find someone else to make it. But they won’t find someone else to make it because it’s not about the cake. It is about state-enforced tyranny: the right to say no to someone who says no.

          henrybowman in reply to Colonel Travis. | June 17, 2021 at 3:15 pm

          I take issue with your first paragraph. How you get separate water fountains and bathrooms and hotels is by passing “majority” laws that forbid anything else. It’s not a freedom of association problem, it’s a government tyranny problem.

          The story of Jim Crow is the story of communities who immediately transitioned from governments demanding that they DO discriminate to governments demanding that they DO NOT discriminate, without ever passing through the American ideal that INDIVIDUALS who wished to discriminate were free to do so, and INDIVIDUALS who wished not to were also free not to.

          If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don’t have to worry about your answers. “What about freedom of association” is the right question.

          Colonel Travis in reply to Colonel Travis. | June 17, 2021 at 5:32 pm

          henrybowman, yes. My point is that you cannot get to the government tyranny problem without first asserting that we have a fundamental right to say no. That’s the overarching argument I didn’t agree with. My analogy wasn’t perfect because government saying no is not always akin to a business owner saying no. Details matter in these cases.

          But saying “we have a right to say no” means you have to carry that out to the logical end. If that is what you believe, than how can you defend your argument by saying I, the individual can say no for any reason, but the government cannot? Would you also say that I can defend myself from violent attack but the government cannot? Isn’t self-defense a right? I would argue that it is, granted to us for being created as we are. We wouldn’t even be here as a species if this right didn’t fundamentally hold.

          I just take issue with the word “right” being tossed around too loosely. Our country was set up so the government cannot take away our rights, because it cannot grant them. Once you grant a new right of saying no in a land built on liberty and freedom, you can kiss that liberty and freedom goodbye.

          henrybowman in reply to Colonel Travis. | June 17, 2021 at 7:20 pm


          how can you defend your argument by saying I, the individual can say no for any reason, but the government cannot?

          Really, this is not difficult
          People have rights. The government does not have rights. The government has powers. These powers are delegated by the Constitution, which is an operational plan and a list of restrictions upon the government. People have the right to freedom of association because it is a natural right. Our federal government does not have that right, because they are constrained to treat people equally under of the law, which means freedom of association is not for them.
          Under the American system, individuals are permitted to discriminate, but the government is not. If you look very closely you will discover that the government has sneakily turned this entire principal on his head such that the government is free to discriminate, but individuals are not.

          I spent a significant part of my life in a country where everybody had the right to say NO and that was the end of it. It’s only been since the left (read also: the government) decided to enforce through litigation what it was unable to accomplish through propaganda and social pressure that we began to turn into a country where individual rights became subjugated to the will of the state.

Same fascists who insist Masterpiece Cake Shop is a monopoly that has to accept all orders insists that google and facebook and youtube and twitter and tik tok are merely private companies that can do whatever they want as publishers even without publishers responsibilities.

    Milhouse in reply to Danny. | June 17, 2021 at 1:54 pm

    You are confused. Nobody claims the cake shop has a monopoly. That is simply not a factor here. The anti-discrimination laws make no reference to monopolies.

    And the companies you name are private companies, and can’t be held liable for material they did not publish. To do so would violate the first amendment.

      lichau in reply to Milhouse. | June 17, 2021 at 6:25 pm

      Facebook can refuse to publish something it doesn’t like–for whatever reason. So–why does this guy have to bake a cake he doesn’t want to bake–for whatever reason?

      I understand the “public accommodation” law of the land. But the baker is willing to sell his cakes to anyone. He just refuses to put certain messages on his cakes. As Facebook refuses to put certain messages on it’s website.

      Yes, I known that Facebook is hiding behind the “publisher” dodge. I suspect that the fact that Facebook discriminates, primarily, against those out of favor with the DC Establishments has a lot to do with it. That and campaign contributions.

      Twitter jus opined (negatively, natch) on Tucker Carlson’s comments regarding the Revolver article suggesting some of the Jan 6 instigators were Federal agents (duh!). Seems to me that is baking a cake.

        daniel_ream in reply to lichau. | June 19, 2021 at 1:58 am

        No, they are not “hiding behind the publisher dodge”.

        Why in the hell is it so hard for soi-disant conservatives to go read what s.230 of the CDA actually says? It’s not written in invisible ink on the back of the ****ing Declaration of Independence, it’s freely available online.

        For the love of St. Michael the Archangel, if one more whiny populist demanding free shit from Big Daddy Government bleats that “publishers! platforms!” nonsense I’m firing up the ODIN.

At least they have the correct usage of “gender” (i.e. sex-correlated attributes).

That said, Masterpiece Cakeshop baked a cake, but resisted compelled speech.

There are other Bakeries.
He hasn’t caused undue hardship to anyone.
Those that brought this Lawsuit knew well he would decline their job.
It is a Vendetta.
Leave that old man alone.

Bake the cake, add powdered laxatives into the mix. Smile.

    The Friendly Grizzly in reply to MAJack. | June 17, 2021 at 2:29 pm

    And when word gets around about his having done so, another suit is brought for intrntion to do harm. The permit people would likely frown upon it, and even some regular customers might.

      henrybowman in reply to The Friendly Grizzly. | June 17, 2021 at 3:19 pm

      It has to be a cake. But it doesn’t have to be tasty.

      Let him make them a perfectly respectable “diabetic-safe” cake, from an approved, widely-published recipe. To those of you who have never tried them, they’re a lot like cardboard, but gummier.

    UserP in reply to MAJack. | June 17, 2021 at 4:31 pm

    Bake the cake and put nothing on top. Then claim someone wiped it with a cloth or something. Sounds like a weak excuse I know but it worked for Hillary Clinton.

    lichau in reply to MAJack. | June 17, 2021 at 7:06 pm

    Not being a lawyer, and not having stayed at a Holiday Inn, I think that constitutes assault. Probably criminal. You took an affirmative action knowing harm would result.

    Lewfarge in reply to Pasadena Phil. | June 17, 2021 at 2:43 pm

    Unfortunately they will still keep trying to destroy him – they can sue over and over and over, because there are so many CORRUPT “judges” that do not care what scotus does !

Any one still need proof of the TYRANNY we are now experiencing in Colorado and across the nation ???

Would it hurt him to subcontract the cake out to another baker and tell the customer that Is how the cake will be made. The customer gets a cake. The baker doesn’t have to make it. If that is not acceptable then there is something more a cake here going on here.

Intentional PROCESS PERSECUTION to intimidate, bankrupt destroy anyone that does not toe the line and accept the commiecrats positions !

So what stops him from baking a plain cake and delivering it, claiming that it identifies as a decorated cake?

healthguyfsu | June 17, 2021 at 2:50 pm

Tell them the cost of the cake is $501 and all proceeds will go towards paying the fine of the next stunt cake.

Phillips probably cannot sue the judge in federal court for violating his First Amendment rights, since judges have absolute immunity even when they are stupid or evil. On the other hand, if Phillips refuses to pay the fine and the State of Colorado extracts it from his bank account or takes any other action against him, he can sue the Colorado officials and the bank for depriving him of his First Amendment rights — since it is absolutely clear under present jurisprudence that Phillips cannot be compelled to bake that cake — and add a claim for punitive damages.

    healthguyfsu in reply to RRRR. | June 17, 2021 at 6:04 pm

    The state can take other punitive measures like health and safety fines, constant inspectors, licensing delays, etc.

    txvet2 in reply to RRRR. | June 17, 2021 at 7:30 pm

    “”judges have absolute immunity even when they are stupid or evil. “”

    One reason why Texans like the fact that our judges are elected. We at least have a chance to throw the idiots out, although we don’t always win.

This is like Heller. Activists judges hate the decisions that were handed down so they ignore them and pretend the rule of law can be ignored in support of their political ideology.

He should genuflect to his Government Masters, create cakes with children without masks, limit his cake selections to those saying “All Lives Matter” and then start creating cake masterpieces that accurately portray the activities of his tormentors and provide them to venues that will publish them.
I’ll contribute the cost of one of those cakes – any other contributors?

All thof this still seems to me to conclude this was totally a PLANNED TARGETED action, just to PERSECUTE Phillips and his business – and continue to try to enforce their views on him !

AF_Chief_Master_Sgt | June 17, 2021 at 9:19 pm

Let’s cut to the chase.

The baker should make the cake. Put two men on it, one in drag, bent over. Sculpt a penis dripping with chocolate brown icing as it’s being removed from the ass of the other.

After all, that’s the “free speech” we are are arguing over.

They don’t like what the baker created, they can go fuck themselves.

Jack Phillips should post the following in his store:

“The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act states that our business may not discriminate among PERSONS with respect to race, religion, or sexual orientation. Masterpiece Cake Shop has never done this, not only with regard to our customers, but also with regard to our employees and our vendors as well. Moreover, we would not engage in such activity even if not proscribed by law.

But the law does not require us to provide ANY product requested. It only requires that we offer the products we DO provide to all our customers. If we tell you we won’t comply with your specific request, then the law requires only that we not provide it to anyone else either, and we are in compliance with that.

If you need to obtain such a product, we will cheerfully assist you in locating an alternative provider, and hope we can help you with our other fine bakery products.

Thank you,
Masterpiece Cake Shop

Brings new meaning and relevance to the old song:
“If I knew you were coming, I’d a baked a cake.”

Or, maybe not.

I sort of like the outsourcing idea suggested earlier.: Jack bakes the base cake, Bakery B, which is willing to decorate the cake with any message, does so, returns cake Jack’s shop where he charges a lagre premium to the customer. Businesses outsource and cooperate all the time. Customer gets his cake, the attention whore is silences as the suit is now moot. Only Jack knows if this compromises his beliefs and principles-(probably).

    Valerie in reply to TheChemist. | June 20, 2021 at 10:41 am

    This is something I would do. However, people with sincere religious or ethical principles might reject it as accomplishing indirectly what they refuse to do directly. It’s sort of like those who object to funding Planned Parenthood with government funds.

    “Oh, I subcontracted the decoration. Your cake is over at their place, ready for you to pick it up, as soon as you pay both of us.”

    JGO_KY in reply to TheChemist. | June 22, 2021 at 9:11 am

    At some point a person has to say, “No”. My “No” would come when I am compelled to write what I do not want to write. Don’t dodge, don’t wobble.

Hmmm – You think they’ll make Progressive Pastries pay $500 for refusing to create a “Congratulations GOP” cake??

What kind of judge, even an elected judge at the State level, cannot recognize malicious prosecution and harassment?

FortesFortunaJuvat | June 21, 2021 at 1:40 pm

“If [as the Federalists say] “the judiciary is the last resort in relation to the other departments of the government,” … , then indeed is our Constitution a complete felo de so. … The Constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they may please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass. They are inherently independent of all but moral law” … — Letter to Judge Spencer Roane, Nov. 1819

Moon Battery | June 21, 2021 at 4:02 pm

This is just using the law to harass another. Honesty, if you are looking for LGBTQA++++ tolerance and acceptance, this is going to have folks turn against you.

In fact, recent polls have shown that for the first time in a decade, support for the LGBTQA+ community is on the decrease.

This is leftard lawfare. They will work the system until they get what they want. And the system is populated with enough idiots that they probably will.