Masterpiece Cakeshop owner sues after refusing to make a birthday cake for a trans woman
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
He does birthday cakes, but not "gender-transition cakes."
Just two months after his narrow victory at the Supreme Court , Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, is back in the news for once again discriminating against an LGBTQ customer. This time, he refused to sell a birthday cake to a transgender person.
Phillips, still represented by the anti-LGBTQ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), has come out swinging. He filed a federal lawsuit Tuesday night against officials in the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) and other state officials, arguing that the department “harbors hostility” against him and the discrimination complaint should be dismissed. Essentially, ADF believes the Supreme Court’s decision this summer immunizes Phillips from any future charges of discrimination.
The facts of the case are simple. Autumn Scardina, a transgender attorney, called Masterpiece Cakeshop asking for a birthday cake. She mentioned that her birthday coincides with the anniversary of coming out as transgender, so she was hoping for a design that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside to commemorate that. Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to make the cake on the grounds that it doesn’t make cakes celebrating gender transitions.
Scardina filed a complaint with the CCRC, alleging that she had suffered discrimination on account of her sex and gender identity. “The woman on the phone,” she wrote, “did not object to my request for a birthday cake until I told her I was celebrating my transition from male to female. I believe that other people who request birthday cakes get to select the color and theme of the cake.”
Phillips challenged the complaint, responding 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.” In late June, however, the CCRC issued a probable cause determination that Phillips had discriminated against Scardina in violation of state laws, which prohibit discrimination on account of transgender status. In its determination, the CCRC even cited the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion, noting that it upheld the right of states to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination in public accommodations.
It’s easy to see how discriminatory Phillips’ actions are. On his website , he advertises birthday cakes, and even showcases a variety of color options and custom designs available for them. This includes, as an example, a cake shaped like Eeyore the donkey, which is blue with pink ears. While the site’s photo gallery never shows the interior of any cake, food coloring is an easy and common addition, and he also advertises a variety of cake flavors , including cherry, and fillings, including raspberry — both of which would naturally be pink.
It’s not unrealistic to think that a customer might request a cake that includes the colors pink and blue in the same fashion as Scardina requested. Indeed, if she had not revealed that the design was related to her identity — or if she had given a different reason, like that pink and blue were her favorite colors — there’s no reason to believe Masterpiece Cakeshop wouldn’t have filled the order. If a customer can buy a product, but only if they hide their identity, then the business is clearly discriminating on the basis of that identity.
It’s the same reason that Phillips’ original sin of refusing to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple was also clear discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Charlie Craig and David Mullins had been perusing Phillips’ catalogue of wedding cakes in his shop when he first started talking to them. They didn’t even have the opportunity to discuss the design of any possible cake, because Phillips refused to sell them a wedding cake outright — regardless of the design. Phillips sold wedding cakes, just not to same-sex couples, so he was clearly discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.
Sorry, Jack Phillips, but it’s still illegal for you to refuse same-sex couples wedding cakes
Jack Phillips says he's ready to start selling wedding cakes again.
But in ADF’s new countersuit, they still insist that Phillips “serves all people — individuals of all races, faiths, sexual orientations, and gender identities — and will design and create custom cakes for anyone,” so long as they don’t “express messages or celebrate events contrary to his religious beliefs.” Though birthdays clearly do not violate his religious beliefs, ADF nevertheless asserts that Phillips’ decisions are based on what the cake will celebrate, not who the customer is.
Even less convincingly, the suit claims, “Phillips has never created a cake like that before.” This requires believing that in the 25 years he has operated his shop, he has never made a cake that is pink on the inside and blue on the outside. The Masterpiece Cakeshop website shows many cake designs with blue exteriors, but it’s unknown if any of them were cherry, contained raspberry filling, or were otherwise artificially colored.
The contention, of course, is that because Scardina wanted a cake that celebrated her transition, it was somehow a different kind of cake than someone else’s birthday cake shaped like a Barbie, a racecar, or a coffin mourning the end of someone’s thirties. As Phillips told the Heritage Foundation , “A gender-transition cake is not something I’ve ever made, and it’s not an event I could celebrate.”
The lawsuit likewise explains that Phillips cannot in good conscience produce a cake that communicates the ideas “that sex can be changed, that sex can be chosen, and that sex is determined by perceptions or feelings” — none of which accurately describes transgender people. ADF had similarly argued that a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding was somehow different than a wedding cake for a different-sex couple, even if the cake had exactly the same design or no design at all.
ADF also contends that Scardina is an LGBTQ advocate and may have been trolling Phillips, suggesting that she had called at other times with frivolous requests. This, however, is irrelevant in determining the legality of his actions. Indeed, many government agencies use testing to assess whether nondiscrimination laws are being followed.
The crux of the argument, however, is that ADF believes that “Colorado rigs the system against people of faith like Phillips.” In fact, the suit alleges that Phillips is entitled to financial damages “for the humiliation, emotional distress, inconvenience, and reputational damage” he has experienced because of the CCRC’s rulings against him.
In reality, Colorado’s nondiscrimination law is not “rigged” against Phillips — at least not any more than a law against stealing is “rigged” against thieves. He just doesn’t seem to want to follow it.
Tags
Who is online
58 visitors
Seems that the bigoted baker couldn't even wait until SCOTUS had ruled before he started illegally denying service to LGBT folks again......this event happened on June 26th 2017, almost a year before SCOTUS remanded his case.
It also looks like Colorado isn't putting up with his bigoted crap.
More coverage here along with a link to the ADF's lawsuit which tries to get special rights for the Christian Taliban:
The key to this case (which the baker is supposed to lose) is how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission responded. If they simply stated that he is in violation of the law, the baker loses. It is that simple.
However, If they do the same thing they did last time - namely, stating that religious objection was really bigotry - they will lose again. I doubt if even Progressive government officials are that obtuse. It would appear that this time the Baker pushed his luck too far.
Wow. It's rare that we actually agree on something. I think it's the first time I've up-voted one of your comments.
Correct. We can't allow them to tell the truth about how religion has frequently been used to justify hate, can we?
Agreed.
If the baker feels "forced," he can simply get out of business or open a members only business. His beliefs are not justification for violating the law.
Well said Vic, I agree.
How many Muslim bakeries bake western cakes?
Apparently, he didn't read all of the recent SCOTUS decision because they included a strong statement in the majority decision warning him not to do what he just did. He was not given permission by the Supreme Court to deny equal service to LGBT customers because of his religious beliefs.
Great question.
Edit: I don't think he knew what was going on at all. Especially if he thinks he now has the right to do what ever he wants.
The vast majority don't make cakes. They bake various flatbreads and meat pies, plus small cookies and pastries.
Some do, some don't. But there are no known incidents of unlawful discrimination by Muslim-owned bakeries, AFAIK.
There was a hoax video by RWNJ Steven Crowder a few years ago, but it actually showed that the only bakeries which denied him service were the ones which didn't make custom wedding cakes.....the other Muslim bakeries were happy to do it. And note that since the video was made in Michigan it would have been perfectly legal for those bakeries to refuse service to LGBT folks but none did.
And they are DELICIOUS.
When this issue was dealt with at the time of the original incident, I suggested that he could probably circumvent the law by becoming a private club. In Toronto, when a restaurant owner opened a steakhouse in an area where the bylaws did not permit such a use, he made it a private club (which the bylaws did not prohibit), selling memberships for a buck, and then operated successfully for years. It was called Carman's Club, and was a hugely successful operation (and the best steakhouse in Toronto).
I have said before that if a business owner does not want to abide by public accommodation or anti discrimination laws, they should either get out of business or run a "members only" business. Problem solved.
Wow, you actually know why the bake won in the Supreme Court:
I'm impressed, vicky. Of course, it's yet another typically weaselly Kennedy opinion. But the CCRC should get it right this time.
I think this baker heard all the hype about how he "won" but never actually understood why he "won"
Or "what" he won, which was merely a retrial if the state chooses to do it for his original violation. And now it seems he gets to collect his winnings.....LOL.
I wonder if the penalty will be harsher this time because it's not his first offense?
I've seen a few interviews with the bigoted baker since then and it's clear that the ADF attorneys have been lying to him about what SCOTUS actually ruled. Either that or they're as incredibly dumb as he is.
I'm going with the just as dumb as he is. You have to remember the "debate" when this ruling was handed down and how soooooooooo many got it wrong. It took people like you to tell me what the ruling really meant
That's the real harm of Kennedy's ruling - its muddy language caused non-lawyers to honestly misinterpret what should be a very clear issue.
But I find it really hard to believe that the ADF lawyers don't understand it despite what they wish the ruling had been. On the other hand based on this current lawsuit by the ADF against the state it's pretty clear they didn't understand it since they claim Phillips has carte blanche to deny service based on his superstitions. Or they're desperately engaged in spin mode despite (or because of) losing every case since the Masterpiece ruling. My guess is that it's a political not a legal strategy, and thus entirely disingenuous.
Note that in the ADF's law suit the commission ruling is attached at the end but the ADF was unable to cite any anti-religious language in the ruling, just the fact that the ruling went against Phillips and thus they claim the state is "anti-religious". Which of course is a totally bogus claim.
This doesn't hold water because a birthday cake is not the same as a "transgender coming out cake"- whatever the hell that is. Just because this persons birthday happens to be the same as this persons "coming out day" is a convenient coincidence.
Unless the dumb bigot has a policy of not making blue cakes with pink interiors, I'd say he's screwed.
Apparently he's not dumb enough to know that a guy can take all the hormones he wants and cut off his penis and he's still a guy- technically a eunuch.
I've known guys who still had all their bits and pieces who were more effeminate than most women I know, if they want to be considered female, what difference is it to you? Whether gay, straight or transgender, they're still humans and worthy of human dignity and respect.
Sorry but Colorado law doesn't care about any of that. In general only the Christian Taliban worries about other people's genitalia.
Is that a baker's decision to make?
BTW, A persons DNA does not determine their gender identity, but I'm sure you probably knew that fact.
"Whether gay, straight or transgender, they're still humans and worthy of human dignity and respect."
Yes, if they are gay, straight or mentally ill they are worthy of respect. And playing along with someone's mental delusion to feel better about yourself is cruel and destructive behavior.
Being gay is no more a mental delusion than some dude liking small tits and a big ass.
Where did you earn your psychology degree? Does Dennis Prager also do that?
This sure comes off as a disingenuous attempt to either harass the baker or generate some buzz for a law firm. Either way it's slimy. It's shit like this that makes people hate lawyers.
But looking at the facts of the case, there doesn't seem to be any dispute about the nature of the request. The "customer" wasn't asking for a blue and pink birthday cake. He was asking the baker to create an expression in the form of a cake with a specific message that being transgender is a good thing. That would seem to be compelled expression and should violate the 1st Amendment. If you're trans and you want a cake, I'm sure that's fine. If you want to buy a message expressed by someone else, that's different.
No, she was asking for a blue and pink cake. Just because she admitted it was a duel purpose birthday/transgender anniversary cake shouldn't have made any difference to the baker as it wouldn't change his baking method in any way. There was no "artistic expression" requested, just a pink cake with blue frosting, pretty simple for any baker and one I'm sure this baker had made a hundred times before and sold with no complaints. Upon learning the purpose of the cake all of a sudden the bigot denied her service. Just another example of hate and bigotry being alive an well in America hiding behind supposed "religious liberty". The baker is going to lose and lose big, but then, that's always how losers eventually end up.
I didn't say it was artistic. I just said it was expression. But to be specific, in this case, it's symbolic expression, as defined by and specifically requested by the customer. Symbolic expression is protected by the 1st Amendment. Tinker v Des Moines; Cohen v California. That's includes coercion of that expression. West Virginia v Barnette (In a rare reversal of itself, the SCOTUS ruled that the government couldn't compel expression, in that case, saluting the flag).
It's the customer's symbolic expression not the baker's. From the Masterpiece ruling:
.
As Ginsburg noted in a footnote:
.
In other words a cake is just a cake. What the customer does with it is their business not the bigoted baker's. And in this case the baker was once again issuing a blanket refusal to make a cake based ultimately on a protected trait of the customer, not merely a rejection of specific text on the cake.
That's exactly what's happening here. Except in this case, the colors have meaning.
As for the Notorious RGB, footnotes from dissenters do not concern me.
To the customer they have meaning but not to the general public, nor can it reasonably be argued that blue and pink are generally offensive. Moreover it's when the baker learned of the protected trait of the customer that the refusal was made, not when they learned of the colors for the cake. So the dumb bigot is screwed again.
I wonder if the state will be more aggressive in any fine they issue since this isn't exactly his first offense and the dumb bigot has indicated his intention to violate the law again? Usually fines in public accommodation cases escalate.
.
I'm not surprised that you ignored those legal citations, particularly since that ruling was 7-1 to affirm the applicability of public accommodations laws in these cases. It explains why you don't understand how public accommodations laws work.
Colours have meaning now? I guess black is witchcraft and red is satanism.
Edit: What if it was a cake for a baby gender reveal party? Blue and pink icing on top, and the reveal colour in the middle cake.
Holy Cow! Read. The. Story!
The lawyer/customer is the one who said the colors have meaning. It didn't come from the baker.
It has a special meaning for herself, not for the general public. Why the baker cares about what it means to the customer is a mystery, apart from the fact that he's a nosy busy-body and a superstitious bigot.
If a couple ordered a wedding cake and asked him to write "Pat & Jim" on it, would the baker be able to make that cake? And if it turned out Pat was a guy would that mean the names they asked him to print on it had "special meaning"?
If you offer exactly the same wedding cake to Pat & Jim when you believe "Pat" is female, but not to the gay couple Pat & Jim, then you're discriminating against them based on their sexual orientation which is illegal.
If you offer exactly the same pink interior, blue frosting birthday cake to everyone else, but won't sell the IDENTICAL cake to someone who is transgender because you now know that has some special significance to them, then you're obviously discriminating based on their gender identity which is illegal.
I'm not sure why bigoted conservatives don't understand that. It seems abundantly clear to me but I think most conservatives simply don't understand civil rights laws.
They also don't seem to understand that a refusal which infringes a protected class in any way is illegal, so it would be the same problem if the cake buyer were a straight married fundamentalist Christian pastor but the cake was for the wedding reception of a same-sex couple and thus the bigoted baker denied service.
Would this baker have the same objections to pink and blue if the cake for was a baby gender reveal /baby shower? Would he inquire if the parents were married at the time of conception, or if the child would be baptized in a church of his approval before he agreed to make it?
Why does he seem to be obsessed about injecting his religious beliefs into the private lives of his customers? Does he think that they are asking for his approval of their lives? Maybe his customers or the health inspector should ask the same questions of him?
That has no bearing on it. If a person beliefs profanity is wrong, he's not going to engage in it whether it's privately or publicly and you can't make him. Besides, there was nothing in the negotiation about keeping the cake and its meaning confidential between the two people.
Except that the fake customer went to pains to make that meaning clear because he knew the baker would object. No mystery. It's a setup.
????
.
So what? Many civil rights cases are setups, like the one where the DOJ proved Donald Trump and his KKK dad were racists who refused to rent to black folks and engaged in redlining.
The funny part is that bigoted conservatives are so easy to set up. They fall for it every time.
Heck.....even the ADF's lawsuits are setups, like this one and the "Brush & Nib" lawsuit they lost in AZ. The only difference is that the ADF tends to lose on the merits in all of these LGBT-related cases.
There were no words on the cake, just a pink cake with blue frosting. So it seems the denial was based on the transgender status of the customer, or the fact that the customer wanted the cake in order to celebrate that status and their birthday. So the denial of service was a blatant violation of the law, no different from refusing a wedding cake to a same-sex couple or a mixed-race couple.
No wonder the civil rights commission unanimously ruled against the dumb bigot again.
By the way do you think that Christian extremists like Phillips are too dumb to follow the law? Or are they just too bigoted to be in business?
Which, the customer made clear were intended to symbolize a celebration of gender transition.
Let's say I want a cake with a swastika on it and the baker has never seen a swastika. I think it's easy to see that the cake is objectionable if I make it clear that the swasitika is there to celebrate white sovereignty and hatred of jews. But it is harmless if I say it's a divine symbol celebrating life and God. Assuming the swastika ordinarily has no meaning for the baker, it's easy to see why a baker might refuse to make one cake but would be happy to make the other.
In this case, pink and blue normally have no significance for the baker and he would probably happily make the cake. But then you tell him it means something he objects to. Now you're asking him to take part in a specific symbolic expression that offends him. And what do you suppose would happen if he did make the cake? You can bet this "customer" would be broadcasting the news to the whole world, tying this baker to an ideology he does not endorse. It's not a reasonable request.
Whether it offends the baker (or offends his bigoted Southern Baptist sect) is generally irrelevant but in this case it bears specifically on his intent to unlawfully discriminate based on the customer's transgender status.
He'd only have a valid claim if pink cakes with blue frosting were generally perceived by the public as offensive like a swastika cake would likely be. In that case he'd have a valid business reason for not wanting his company to be associated with a hate symbol.
.
You mean the world would be shocked that a dumb bigot like Phillips actually followed the law? Ask Maurice Bessinger whether his business collapsed after the courts ruled he couldn't deny service to blacks folks or mixed-race couples. LOL.
Not at all. Based on his history, he clearly would be happy to serve that customer. His discrimination is based on the expression requested, not the status of the customer.
You're confusing this case with obscenity law. The cake has the meaning the customer defined. Public perception is irrelevant.
Again, irrelevant. Totally different situation.
The record proves otherwise. Once the bigoted baker learned of the protected trait of the customer and the intent of the customer to celebrate that protected trait, the dumb bigot refused service. That's very clearly illegal.
.
Sounds like it's exactly the same thing particularly since Bessinger was a BBQ "artiste" and a Southern Baptist like Phillips, and he cited his racist superstitions as an excuse for illegally denying service. The only difference is which protected trait of the customer was infringed, but legally the cases are identical.......which is why the Newman v Piggie Park case was repeatedly cited in the Masterpiece ruling. The state treats all protected classes the same under this law.
Um . . . how do I put this nicely?
Bullshit!
You don't get to fold in something you know is false, attach it to the truth, and pretend both are true. He has a history of serving LGBT. That is a fact.
Nothing happened. Nothing! The trait of the customer was not relevant and there is no fact implying that it was. The facts declare the opposite. Here is the PROOF that the bakery's objection was to the message ONLY. It's right there in the story in the words of the plaintiff himself.
And the reported position of the bakery confirms that it was the message, not the customer.
The customer could have been 100% straight and non-trans, but if he was ordering a cake celebrating transgender transition, the bakery would still refuse to make it. The status of the customer is irrelevant.
The bakery would have been happy to make a birthday cake for a transgender person and the author of the story admit it.
But my eyes are not closed. Even this writer is trying to fudge the facts to get to the intended message with this phrasing:
That's a very careful manipulation of the facts. Related how? We already know the bakery serves LGBT so it might actually be defamation to publish the accusation that the customer's identity was THE reason they refused to make the cake. So they just say "related."
And again, how is it related? The MESSAGE.
That's my point exactly - it was the planned celebration of the transgender status which caused the bigoted baker to violate the customer's civil rights.
It's pretty clear that you have no clue how these laws work, but one basic aspect is that the reason for the denial cannot impact a protected trait in any way.
.
That would be illegal in the exact same way, but I'm not sure what you think being "straight" has to do with the topic.
.
Completely irrelevant. Once again you reveal that you have no clue how these laws work and are unaware that the law requires full and equal service.
Even you have to keep putting it in, but you keep ignoring it. As long it's there, you can't say the order was refused because of the status of the customer.
Clearly it was a protected trait of the customer as the bigoted baker admitted in his loony lawsuit:
Based on his own statement it seems that the bigoted baker infringed both sex and gender identity. Take your pick. No wonder he lost again.
What their an offensive message to be written on that cake?
That should have read;
Was there an offensive message to be written on the cake?
Why don't you read the story?
Read. The. Story.
The offensive message was:
You don't need words to send a message. The customer was asking for symbolic expression.
What that means is that the baker has no valid business claim whatsoever for denying service, like the appearance of the cake being offensive to the general public.
All he has is an illegitimate reason.......a reason which directly impacts a class protected under state law.
Almost all of life is a symbolic expression of some sort. That is why we have free speech rights to protect it.
This bigot is searching for ways that he can claim to be offended. Maybe he should set up his bakery in the church basement and only bake for members of his sect that presumably won't insult his delicate sensibilities.
Then this shit for brains baker must NOT use pink or blue anymore for anyone since it offends him.
"Oh wait......you're intending to use this cake at a wedding reception for a mixed-race couple? So sorry but we don't make cakes to celebrate symbolic abominations like that. But we're not racists - we're happy to make them a cake for something like a birthday party as long as it's not for one of their subhuman mixed-race kids."
You keep trying to bring the general public into it. It's not relevant.
You doubt his claim? But if that white man said something that offended a person who was black, female, or lgbt, you would accept the fact of an offense without question. Double standard.
What did he say?
I fail to see how baking a cake is offensive to his religious beliefs? What are the religious beliefs of the customer in question? Maybe the customer is also a member of the same sect?
Public perception isn't an issue in this case given that a protected class was infringed, but otherwise a valid business reason for a denial of service would be if the business didn't want to be associated with a product which was generally seen as being offensive like a swastika cake. Of course that argument wouldn't work in this case.
Funny how little you know about these laws. I've never met a conservative yet who knew what a protected class was or how these laws are enforced.
LGBTQ acceptance is coming fast; the large majority of young people today are not bigoted. This is a BOON for cake shops and wedding suppliers. I mean, even if you HATE these people, business is business. It's incredible that a business owner would allow his bigotry to hurt his bottom line.
deleted
deleted
deleted
deleted
This is all off-topic from 5.1 on.
i don't know if you realize this or not - but criminals don't obey laws, so regardless of the "silly bathroom policies" those crimes will still happen regardless and criminals will still be punished for committing crimes. I am a bit surprised you didn't know this already.
E.A So GUNS are to blame but Bathrooms are not?? Complicity here?
And in every case you list they were arrested and charged with a crime. It's still illegal to assault anyone in a restroom or anywhere else, no transgender bathroom laws changed that.
i don't ever remember saying that - but i'm sure you will now point out exactly where i did, right ? could you also tell me my viewpoint on the gun debate since i haven't given it out on these message boards yet ? thanks
Do you not understand that policy changes can facilitate criminal activity? If you announce that you will be removing armed guards from the banks, guess what's going to happen to the bank robbery rate? (Hint: it will go up)
If you announce that anyone can go into any bathroom, no questions asked, guess what will happen to rates of sexual assault in bathrooms (Hint: it goes up. The statistics prove it)
But the assaults still happened. You're ok with double the amount of assaults just because the perverts were arrested? You have some strange priorities.
and guess what ? those criminals will still be arrested, prosecuted etc for their crimes, correct ? and if those guards are still there - does it stop robbers ? absolutely not ! and those criminals will still be arrested, prosecuted etc for their crimes, correct ? (hint: criminals don't obey laws, period)
and those criminals will still be arrested, prosecuted etc for their crimes, correct ? if you don't announce any such thing in your claim - then guess what ? (hint: it will still happen because criminals don't obey laws) will those criminals still be arrested, prosecuted etc for their crimes ? (hint: yes) so what is the purpose of your silly potty laws again ? they don't stop crime - crimes will happen regardless, you are just punishing people for not adhering to your agenda of biological sex = gender identity. (oh yea, now's the time you throw in the ridiculous comparisons of "well why have speeding laws since people will speed anyway ?!" ... i'll wait)
Every one? We don't catch every bank robber or sexual assaulter as it is! What in the world makes you think the perpetrator of every crime is caught?
And even if they were, how is it you don't understand that people in the bank are still terrorized and money is still gone?
well obviously it's implied that this applies only to criminals we catch - i'm surprised you even had to ask that question.... well, maybe not....
how is it you don't understand that whatever law you do or don't pass - criminals don't obey laws, that's the reason they are criminals. i completely understand that people in the bank are still terrorized and the money is still gone with or without armed guards present.. why ? here we go ! criminals don't obey laws !
Many people adhere to their religious morality in business because doing what's right is more important than money.
And bigotry is intolerance of people who disagree with you. It's not simply refusing to agree with them or endorse things they support. This baker has a record of serving lgbt customers, so he is not intolerant of them. He just doesn't want to take part in their expression of celebrating what they do.
Alienating customers because of some belief seems like a poor business model. If the baker doesn't want to serve gays, perhaps he should start a members only business.
It might be, but for some people, money isn't the most important thing in the world. You'd think at least somebody on the Left might applaud that idea.
He does serve gays. That was actually established in the previous court case. He just doesn't do every damned thing they ask of him. That's not unusual in a business. Too many people these days think that every thing they want in the world is a civil right. It's not.
Actually it's VERY unusual as well as completely illegal in a state whose public accommodation laws require full and equal service. That's why the state has now ruled that he willfully broke the law at least twice.
.
I suggest you read CO's public accommodations law and learn why the dumb bigot keeps losing. You obviously know nothing whatsoever about these civil rights laws.
what an odd statement - i've always been told the purpose of a business isn't to create jobs or anything like that... it's to... ready ? ... make money ! Makes one wonder why they would open a business if they don't intend to make money.
What's the point of having a business if not to make money? If he doesn't care about that, he could simply make cakes and donate them. And no, he doesn't serve gays equally. He refused to provide a product that he normally provides to anyone else. That's discriminatory. His beliefs is merely the excuse.
Irrelevant. Discriminatory refusal of service is still discrimination.
That's probably because almost all businesses follow the law. But the bigoted businesses richly deserve the consequences of their illegal behavior and they definitely need to be closely monitored by the state and by civil rights advocates.
The bigoted baker must be a real moron not to realize that he'll continue to be tested as long as he's still in business, particularly since he promised to break the law again.
That's his business, isn't it? I'm sure he does make money. Maybe not as much as you would make, though, huh? Pat yourself on the back. You're a better businessman than he is.
Not true! He does not make cakes for straight people or anyone else who want the cake design to celebrate gender transition.
Yes, it is. But many types of discrimination are perfectly reasonable and legal. The 1st Amendment protects us from being compelled to engage in expression we don't agree with. That's why kids don't have to say the pledge of allegiance in schools.
Hmmmm......that sounds like a reason which directly infringes a class protected under state law. Looks like the dumb bigot will lose unanimously in court again.
There's a protected class of people who like to celebrate transgenderism?
Sounds like a failed attempt to claim that a party about gender transition isn't about the protected classes of gender identity and sex. No wonder the bigoted baker lost.
It's exactly like claiming that a refusal to bake a cake for a mixed-race wedding isn't a refusal which infringes the protected class of race.
Of course it is. If he wants to alienate potential clients and possibly incur legal and social ramifications as a result, that is his business. I simply said it's a poor business model.
I would be better based alone on accepting all customers and not alienating anyone with bigotry.
Did you even reads the article? He clearly refused service. The cake in question was meant to be a birthday cake.
Glad you agree.
Expression wasn't the issue here.
Sorry, but you are not entitled to your own facts.
I've stated only facts!
By the way, you might want to check out the polls:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/11/08/transgender-issues-divide-republicans-and-democrats/%3famp=1
Young people are almost equally divided about transgender issues. Those are the facts.
color me shocked ... a religious person expecting to be able to legally discriminate against people they find " icky " and have the courts ( government ) enforce the discrimination
well that sounds nice until you read this:
so he won't serve all people - individuals of all races, faiths, sexual orientations and gender identitie s because, for example, same sex couples express messages and/or celebrate events contrary to his religious beliefs . So why is he trying to kid anyone ?
now i can't wait for all the conservative minded, especially the religious conservative minded , to tell everyone how they feel a public business owner shouldn't have to do the job they voluntarily decided to do and serve ... the public . Maybe they can tell everyone who public business owners should serve since they feel those public business owners shouldn't be forced to serve the public if they own a public business .
There's little doubt that the bigot could get away with refusing to write certain messages on the cake as long as he denies those messages to everyone and the denial doesn't infringe a protected class. But for the ADF to claim that the refusal extends to "events" (ie what purpose the customer intends to use the cake for) goes way too far.....and in this case it infringes a protected class anyway.
Hopefully the state will fast track any appeals by the bigot and also require him to abide by a consent decree like the one signed by the racist Trumps.
deleted
On a side note I suspect the ADF anti-gay hate group is happy that the bigoted baker broke the law again because they can keep grifting from gullible conservatives. They probably hope that the bible-babbling extremists won't notice that they actually keep losing in the courts on LGBT issues including in several recent cases which cite the Masterpiece ruling.
Let him spend his time in court instead of baking fake xtian cakes.
Gotta agree with OP on this one as well. Surprised myself again skrekk.
much line parking a truck full of nikes in front of you is an invitation to steal or entrapment.... your crimes and discrimination are on the individual alone
Someone should call him up and order a cake that's brown chocolate inside with white frosting. Then when they pay for it and pick it up they can give it to the baker as a gift and tell him it represents his faux righteous exterior hiding his shitty prejudiced interior.
So, it this schmuck's objection this time going to be his religious beliefs forbid him from recognizing a birthday based on the sexual identification of the client? Did he write his own bible purely based on his personally invented religion?
Pretty much, although there's no doubt that his Southern Baptist sect shares all of his anti-LGBT views.
The good news is that while the courts have to treat religious claims at face value, they also need to disregard them because they're irrelevant.
His Bible comes with its won custom fitted pointy hood.
Deleted,
The two religious clauses in the First Amendment are proof that cannot happen but feel free to publically announce your persecution fantasies.
I'd much prefer that schools are required to teach logical thought so people reject all religious belief via rational thought for themsleves.
Fake victimhood by phony christians is a staple of their "canon."
I know, right? It's just as bad as when the courts ruled against the noble racist Southern Baptist who simply wanted to keep his BBQ restaurant whites-only. It's like they're trying eliminate Christians from this nation by making them follow the laws everyone else follows.
I believe religious harangues like this violate the CoC.
Of course because this is a site that allows hatred of Christians and Christianity
What are the religious beliefs of Perrie, if you believe that the CoC contains a religious bias?
The two religious clauses of the First Amendment prohibit your religious persecution fantasy from ever occurring. Would you like me to explain how that works?
Funny, because I've never met anyone here who acted in any way "Christian" in the sense of adhering to or even showing any awareness of any of the teachings of its founder.
I said nothing about Perrie’s Personal beliefs. That was not the context of my post. I said the site ALLOWS hatred of Christians and Christianity and I stand by that statement
Because you know nothing of the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles
It's called free speech and religious rights. If you have a problem with that then I can only suggest that you find forums that align with your social, political, and religious views and do not permit opposing ideas.
You can hate me all you want to for any of my opinions. I'm not going to lose sleep over it.
That BS statement aside, if you don't like it, then leave! No one is forcing you to be here.
Even an atheist like me seems to know much more than you seem to based on the vicious content of your comments. BTW, I wasn't always a non-believer. I spent a few decades in that fantasy world before I realized what a crock it all was but what sanctimonious hypocrites the most ardent believers were. I couldn't stand that stench after that.
It's fake victimhood from a claque of fake christians so there's a need to be here to play that role in that farce.
First they play the victim, then they play the persecution card.
Deleted
There is no act of love or human kindness that could not be just as well extended in the complete absence of organized religion … and, without the psychotic view of reality, the guilt-tripping, the fear-mongering and the segregation of one sect from another.
ANY OTHER STUFF YOU'D LIKE BROUGHT ON … DO LET ME KNOW, livefreeordie …