Trans

Colorado and Baker End Fight Over Whether He Can Be Forced To Make a Transgender Cake

Both sides agree to stand down. First Amendment precedents were on the baker's side.

|

Pink and blue cake
Elena Veselova / Dreamstime.com

Another cake stand-off in Colorado—this time about a transgender celebration cake—appears to be coming to an end, with both sides agreeing to walk away.

Masterpiece Bakeshop of Lakewood, Colo., became a household name when owner Jack Phillips scrapped with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission after he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to religious objections to same-sex marriage.

The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices dodged the larger issue of whether the act of making a cake is a form of free expression protected by the First Amendment. Instead, the justices ruled in a 7-2 decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not been a neutral arbiter examining the rights of all parties involved, and had, in fact, expressed hostility toward Phillips' religious rights in its decision.

While that case was making its way up the courts, a transgender attorney contacted Phillips claiming she wanted to have a custom cake made to celebrate her identity, saying she wanted one with a blue exterior and pink interior.

Phillips also has religious objections to recognizing transgender identities, and so he declined to make the cake. The lawyer, Autumn Scardina, filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who went after Phillips again. Phillips responded with a lawsuit of his own, arguing that the state was targeting him because of his religious beliefs.

Today, both the State of Colorado and Phillips have agreed to drop litigation in the case after the Commission said it would dismiss the complaint if Phillips dropped his lawsuit. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser seemed to realize this wasn't a test case that was going to lead to a different outcome:

"After careful consideration of the facts, both sides agreed it was not in anyone's best interest to move forward with these cases. The larger constitutional issues might well be decided down the road, but these cases will not be the vehicle for resolving them. Equal justice for all will continue to be a core value that we will uphold as we enforce our state's and nation's civil rights laws."

This was most certainly the right call by Colorado. As I noted when this case began winding through the courts, it seemed pretty clear that this was an attempt to require Phillips to create a cake that expressed a particular belief. Central to the wedding cake fight was whether a wedding cake inherently sent a message and whether the baker was being forced to express support for same-sex marriage if he was required to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Is a wedding cake truly a message of support for same-sex marriage, or is it just a shape?

In this case, the color of the cake requested by the lawyer was clearly intended to serve as a message. There are a number of Supreme Court precedents establishing that businesses typically cannot be forced by the government to transmit or include messages with which they disagree. Bakers cannot be forced to make cakes that support transgender identities. This is a necessary component of free speech, one that also protects bakers who do not wish to make cakes that celebrate white nationalism, or transmit other kinds of messages they find offensive. It should come as no surprise that the law protects the rights of vendors. If white nationalists—or literally anyone else—wants to message with marzipan, they are free to make their own cakes.

NEXT: NYPD Banned Street Parking for Department Flag Football Championship, Says It 'Relocated' Violators' Cars

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Commies have an endless list of complaints most of which require forcing someone else to comply with their demands or else !!

    1. What makes you think that the plantiffs against the cake dude are communists?

      1. Yeah, they could be LP members

        1. I didn’t say that. I just want to know why he thinks that they are communists. Are all authoritarians communists?

          1. No. I was being serious.

            1. Indeed, Gary Johnson was on the side of forcing accommodation as I recall. Still probably the least awful candidate, but not very libertarian to many people that claim it.

              1. No. Gary Johnson was and is profoundly awful for a whole host of reasons. And Johnson’s statist position couldn’t have existed in a vacuum. If you recall he said “ban the burka” along with his “bake the cake” nonsense. He backed away from “ban the burka” the next day. Which means that his supporters instructed him on intersectionality and what faiths it was OK to be a statist asshole to.

                1. Ah, I had forgotten his fail on the burka..burqa…things. Personally he was still marginally better than Trump or Hillary but I never really thought squishy libertarian would govern especially well either.

                  1. 2016 will probably go down in history as the only time where three espoused religious bigots ran for the presidency. Hillary and Gay Jay had the anti-Christian bigotry angle cornered and Trump had the anti-Muslim bigotry angle.

                    Jill Stein was the only one who wasn’t espousing religious bigotry as a selling point.

                    1. anti-Muslim bigot = telling the truth about Islam.

                    2. A ban against the immigration of people based upon their faith is so clearly bigoted and so offensive to the original ideals of the US that we might as well just erase The Virginia Bill of Religious Liberty from our history.

                      That alone should have disqualified Trump from the presidency

                    3. But the actual immigration ban attempt wasn’t actually that, though. Trump must not follow through very well if he was animated by religious reasons. I really doubt Trump gives fucks about religion. I’m not so sure most of his supporters do, either, given how few of their checkboxes he fills.

                    4. I get that the final immigration ban was not targeted toward a specific faith (according to the US Supreme Court), but apart from my general dislike for this specific policy, he said during the campaign a “Muslim ban”. I don’t think that’s acceptable and it most definitely reeks of religious animus, in my opinion.

                    5. Fair enough, one does not need to be religious in order to be hostile to a faith, although it’s also true some faiths invite discrimination by being generally terrible too. Islam still has a few hundred years to catch up with, which is strange since their faith wasn’t as backwards hundreds of years ago. Go figure. I know very little about their faith though, and I suspect rampant cherrypicking on both sides but I try to remember that theocracy can justify much that isn’t present in a faith.

                    6. From the Virginia Bill of Religious Liberty:

                      “that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as
                      ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men,
                      have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own
                      opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as
                      such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and
                      maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and
                      through all time:”

                      Why do you think that TJ would have protested the prohibition of persons living voluntarily under Sharia law when they were the ones he was railing against?

                    7. This proceeds your excerpt:

                      “Whereas, Almighty God hath created the mind free;

                      That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do,”

                      And the kicker:

                      “That to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy which at once destroys all religious liberty because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;”

                    8. Why did we have two Barbary Wars?

                      Sharia.

                    9. A ban against the immigration of people based upon their faith is so clearly bigoted

                      Even when their “Faith” is clearly antithetical to our Constitution. See; Dhimmi, the Fourth Amendment.
                      Also, which Amendment would support the following? ” Traditional theory of Islamic jurisprudence recognizes four sources of sharia: the Quran, sunnah (authentic hadith), qiyas (analogical reasoning), and ijma (juridical consensus). Different legal schools?of which the most prominent are Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’i, Hanbali and Jafari?developed methodologies for deriving sharia rulings from scriptural sources using a process known as ijtihad.Traditional jurisprudence distinguishes two principal branches of law, ?ib?d?t (rituals) and mu??mal?t (social relations), which together comprise a wide range of topics. Its rulings assign actions to one of five categories: mandatory, recommended, neutral, abhorred, and prohibited. Thus, some areas of sharia overlap with the Western notion of law while others correspond more broadly to living life in accordance with God’s will.”

                      The practice of Sharia is as incompatable with our Constitution as Aztec Human Sacrifice.

                    10. It’s pretty ironic to me that a nation founded on Christian principles has become a nation where Christianity is the only acceptable religion to be openly hostile to on a consistent basis. Judaism gets a whole lot of it too, don’t get me wrong, but I would expect religeous minorities to get shafted on bigotry. Not the majority faith.

                    11. Jill Stein was the only one who wasn’t espousing religious bigotry as a selling point.

                      Extreme Environmentalist Atheism is a Religion.

                  2. GayJay was never “marginally better” than Trump. He was for a more interventionist foreign policy too.

                  3. Johnson was worse, just another Progressive and not much different than Sanders.

              2. I get paid over $180 per hour working from home with 2 kids at home. I just got paid $ 8550 in my previous month It Sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it.
                ?????AND GOOD LUCK????? http://WWw.Aprocoin.com

          2. Eric is a filthy stinkin’ communist!

      2. I can smell a commie, they smell worse than rats.

        1. Communist, Socialist, Progressive…..

  2. saying she wanted one with a blue exterior and pink exterior

    Can’t tell if… typo or accurate reporting.

    1. Seriously. A pink cake that’s blue on the outside or a cake that’s pink that it insists everyone should regard as blue? Are we talking about a cake that’s technically feasible or a cake that’s specifically dictating others’ speech?

      1. Fuckin’ transtesticles wantin’ Transtesticle cakes now!

        WTF was wrong with chocolate?

        1. It’s like the blackface of the food world.

    2. They’re all pink in the middle.

      1. Well, the Chocolate ones do tend to be a little purplish in the middle …

    3. We need you to draw seven red lines. [Pause.]

      All of them strictly perpendicular; some with green ink and some with transparent. Can you do that?

    4. “While that case was making its way up the courts, a transgender attorney Progtard Asshole contacted Phillips claiming she wanted to have a custom cake made to celebrate heris identity, saying she wanted one with a blue exterior and pink interior, just like his colon.”

      FTFY

      1. just like his colon.

        You mean his vagolon? It’s kind of a double duty orifice.

  3. everybody sucks here

    1. One side is just baking cakes and the other side is pursuing legal action at all corners but, yeah, both sides. If we could just get rid of the cake bakers all the frivolous lawsuits and biased, petty civil rights commissions would go away.

      1. Will no one think of Louis XVII?

        1. Didn’t he die in jail?

        2. Let him eat gay cake.

      2. Don’t worry. Cake bakers will soon be replaced by robots.

        1. I just re-watched* Age of Ultron. Asshole mighta saved those Avengers a lot ot hassle if he just tried to “evolve” humanity with identity cakes.

          *hey snooty movie twerps, if I have already watched a movie, how is it not okay for me to say “re-watched” if I watch it again?

    2. Oh definitely. The guy who wants to run his business according to his conscience is worse than Hitler or something. You totally support free markets and individualism.

      1. I support the cake guys right to bake any cake he wants. I also think he sucks for being a bigot. And yes he’s a bigot.

        1. If we’re going down the road where people practicing a faith that has existed for 2,000 years are actually just bigots then you’re going to find a lot of bigots around every corner. As it stands, the people going after Phillips seem to be more bigoted than him.

          1. Have you ever read the bible? Especially the old testament? The list of prohibitions listed alongside homosexuality are legion. But something tells me that this guy has no problem depicting garments made of two or more fibers on his cakes. He’s a bigot.

            Oh and yes, I agree that the leftists going after him suck just as much as he does.

            1. (1) You don’t get to define anyone’s faith. If he wants to pick and choose what to follow in the Bible, that’s his choice (and is in line with all major Christian faiths who place more emphasis on the New Testament than the Old Testament).

              (2) Phillips won’t make Halloween cakes and said he would make these people a gay wedding cake. He didn’t want to decorate it and didn’t want to make a “wedding” cake in particular.

              Seems like you’re more animated by animus than the actual facts of the case.

              1. Doesn’t make him any less of a bigot. Some bigots justified black slavery using the Bible. Are you trying to claim they were *not* bigots because it was a religious belief?

                1. “Some bigots justified black slavery using the Bible.”

                  You just recycled an a historical argument that this very same commission tried to make. In truth, the abolitionist movement was far more informed by religion than the pro-slavery side. The pro-slavery side primarily relied on economic arguments.

                  Regardless, it’s hilarious you guys will jump to claim Phillips is a “bigot” because he won’t make a fucking cake, but you strain to acknowledge the religious bigotry that underscored this whole crusade.

                  1. “In truth, the abolitionist movement was far more informed by religion than the pro-slavery side.”

                    On this note you may want to revisit The Second Great Awakening.

                  2. Fuck, Jack, there’s bigots all over the place. You don’t get to single one out as a non-bigot just because religion informs him.

                    1. “Fuck, Jack, there’s bigots all over the place.”

                      There are bigots everywhere and yet in this case only the commission was found to have behaved with bigotry. So weird that you guys want to accuse Phillips of bigotry, though. Almost, as if your opinion is informed by bigotry.

                    2. Fuck, Jack, there’s bigots all over the place. You don’t get to single one out as a non-bigot just because religion informs him.

                      Fallacy; that’s an inaccurate framing of his argument. Is he definitely a bigot at all? What is a “bigot”? Anyway, why is it anyone’s business what this man chooses to make and not make? It’s his business and his reasoning is his own. It’s his natural right to refuse whatever business he chooses. All these judgments are irrelevant.

                    3. Fuck, Jack, there’s bigots all over the place. You don’t get to single one out as a non-bigot just because religion informs him.

                      Fallacy; that’s an inaccurate framing of his argument. Is he definitely a bigot at all? What is a “bigot”? Anyway, why is it anyone’s business what this man chooses to make and not make? It’s his business and his reasoning is his own. It’s his natural right to refuse whatever business he chooses. All these judgments are irrelevant.

                2. Yeah and those northern bigots used the Bible to justify anti-slavery.

                3. If I refuse to go on a date with a transgender because my standards for dating include my date possessing a XX chromosome and the associated natural plumbing that accompanies it, would that make me a bigot?

                  Answer: Not fucking likely, no matter what idiots like Riley Dennis may whine about.

            2. The list of prohibitions listed alongside homosexuality are legion. But something tells me that this guy has no problem depicting garments made of two or more fibers on his cakes. He’s a bigot.

              I’m pretty sure you don’t know what the word bigot means.

              1. Bigot just means intolerant of differences of opinion, and both sides were bigots BUT in my view those who decided to sue someone for their opinion is much worse. The baker didn’t try to, for example, kick them out of his store. The gay couple and the TG tried to put him out of business.

                1. Bigot just means intolerant of differences of opinion

                  Is the act of not baking a cake an intolerant opinion even if it doesn’t dispel the contravening opinion that a cake will be baked?


                  1. Is the act of not baking a cake an intolerant opinion…

                    It’s an intolerant behavior, but not an overly offensive one unless somehow he is the only possible maker of cakes. Two wrongs don’t make a right, but trying to crush him with the weight of the state is orders of magnitude worse. Blind tolerance is also not a virtue, but him allowing people into his store when he disagrees with their personal lives is fairly tolerant of him.

                    If a KKK member let’s black people into their store to buy most items, but restricts some items due to faith, what would we say? (Obviously not a perfect analogy since there is little proof that being gay is immutable. Just a thought in terms of forced association to test one’s faith, shall we say.)

                    1. Or, alternatively for our Christian readers, would Jesus refuse to bake someone a wedding cake because they were gay? Yes, he likely would, and it is because marriage itself is before the eyes of god in his faith. A civil union, though, perhaps not. I must assume that the state coopting religious institutions with force of law is at fault here.

                    2. Or, alternatively for our Christian readers, would Jesus refuse to bake someone a wedding cake because they were gay?”

                      I’m not a biblical scholar, but I disagree. Jesus preached tolerance and love. He regularly associated with sinners and prostitutes. Just my opinion, but I’d like to think that Jesus would have gladly baked a cake for any sinner. Or more precisely, built a house for a gay person (since he was a carpenter).

                    3. Remember when Jesus just accepted and loved the money changers in the temple? I suggest you read a bit more since you appear to only recall the children’s bible study version of Jesus.

                    4. Good point. I’d assume then that Bankers are another on the list of “NO CAKE FOR YOU” at the Masterpiece Cake Shop. Or at least any depiction of bankers, money, taxes, or anything else rendered to Ceaser? No?

                    5. Who said anything about bankers? Believe it or not, banks didn’t sell sacrifices even then…

                    6. I would suspect that Jesus would refuse to bake the cake because he was a carpenter, and was a decent enough guy to know that any cake he baked would taste like sawdust.

                    7. Ha, fair point Piggy. Honestly there’s no concrete answer, but I think I like yours best.

                    8. Well, he could have marketed it as ‘gluten-free’, and no one would suspect the sawdust

                2. I agree with BYODB.

                  The baker may be a bigot WRT homesexuals and transexuals and Halloween partiers, but the plaintiffs went out of their way to locate a target for whom they held bigoted hatred of his religious beliefs and initiated the lawsuits to FORCE him to bend to their bigoted will.

                  That makes them worse in my book.

                  The baker’s bigotry was essentially passive–he wasn’t going out of his way to force his beliefs on the plaintiffs.

                3. bigot noun
                  big??ot | \ ?bi-g?t \
                  Definition of bigot
                  : a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
                  especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

                  Seems like there is a hatred and intolerance bar that is simply not met by Phillips (the baker). He didn’t tell them to fuck off and die, he politely declined to provide a service, as should be anyone’s right.

                  Meanwhile, trying to put someone out of business for politely refusing to provide you a service, clears the intolerant bar by a mile.

                  1. Chuckles is correct

            3. Have you ever read the bible?
              90% of the time when someone asks this question, it means that they haven’t.

              To be honest I still don’t see why discriminating against a behavior you find repellant is wrong. Unlike biological sex and ethnicity (race) homosexuality is an behavior, not a state of being. And no, despite all the attempts to pretend they have, no biological cause for homosexuality has ever been discovered.

              1. “To be honest I still don’t see why discriminating against a behavior you find repellant is wrong.”

                Then the cake dude should man up and admit why he won’t bake a gay cake. He hides behind Jebus (who never once said anything about homosexuality), but did have quite a bit to say about those who judge others, as well as hypocrites. And I have read the bible btw. (even Psalms which was written to induce sleep).

                1. See, you just demonstrated that you are a bigot in this case. You just don’t want to believe that some people actually believe that what you find acceptable they do not find morally acceptable.

                  Now your position makes sense.

                  1. My contention with the baker, and the reason I see him as a bigot, is that if one wants to hide behind the bible for justification of their actions (or inactions in this case), then they should be consistent. As noted, the bible cites hundreds of everyday offenses which should also offend this baker.

                    And I don’t buy the “Christians can pick and choose” argument. Either the bible is the infallible word of God, or it isn’t. Would you give such leeway to Constitutional law? Is it OK to be pro the literal interpretation of the 1st Amendment on the grounds that it’s in the BOR, but say that the 2nd shouldn’t be taken literally?

                    1. “is that if one wants to hide behind the bible for justification of their actions (or inactions in this case)”

                      And yet you can’t prove that. You want to believe that and yet the facts of the case have only shown that the commission was motivated by bigotry.

                      “And I don’t buy the “Christians can pick and choose” argument. Either the bible is the infallible word of God, or it isn’t.”

                      I’ve often found that religious bigots are usually the least informed about religion. Thank you for proving that true once again. You may want to note that no major Christian tradition views the Bible as “the word of God” or “infallible”. Muslims view the Koran as the literal word of God, but no mainstream Christians believe that about the Bible. At best, Christians view the Bible as “divinely inspired”.

                      You should be embarrassed by the arguments that you’ve made on this thread. They demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of this case and cracker jack theology. Bigots truly are idiots.

                    2. You may want to note that no major Christian tradition views the Bible as “the word of God” or “infallible”. Muslims view the Koran as the literal word of God, but no mainstream Christians believe that about the Bible. At best, Christians view the Bible as “divinely inspired”.

                      – Google works best against smug misinformed people like yourself. Catholics believe in Biblical inerrancy. As do a huge number of evangelical churches. See the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978).

                      You should be embarrassed by the arguments that you’ve made on this thread. They demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of this case and cracker jack theology. Bigots truly are idiots.

                      – I’ll throw your request back at you: Prove that I’m a bigot.

                    3. “Catholics believe in Biblical inerrancy. As do a huge number of evangelical churches. See the Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy (1978).”

                      It truly is impressive, considering how many Christians reside in America, that people can be so ignorant about the faith. You don’t understand the difference between “inerrancy” and “word of God” and “infallible” huh? Maybe you should revisit Martin Luther’s criticisms of the Catholic Church and their view of the Bible. I really believe that you could learn a lot by understanding those that you so hate, which in your case are the religious.

                      “I’ll throw your request back at you: Prove that I’m a bigot.”

                      Because your whole argument boils down to you rejecting that Phillips could actually be sincere in his religious beliefs and instead continue to fault him as a bigot when the only party in this instance that has been shown to have espoused bigotry was the commission attacking Phillips.

                    4. 2 things:

                      1. Catholics are a HUGE Christian denomination. Doesn’t matter what Luther says nor how you attempt to misdirect this argument.

                      2. You can’t prove that I’m a bigot either.

                    5. Doesn’t matter what Luther says nor how you attempt to misdirect this argument.

                      A few billion Protestant adherents would like a word with you.


                    6. You may want to note that no major Christian tradition views the Bible as “the word of God” or “infallible”

                      This is simply false but not everyone has gone to multiple faiths churches either so it’s unsurprising you don’t know this.

                    7. I was quoting Juat Say’n, forgot to put the quotes around it.

                      Love how principled you are though BYODB.

                    8. Frankly I’m not so sure of the difference on inerrancy myself even if I could hazard some guesses (I honestly had to look it up, means what I expected), but I do know some Baptists who believe the bible is the literal word of god.

                      Just Saying is a pretty smart cookie though, he’s worth listening to. I just took a lot of religeon classes across multiple faiths growing up and picked up a thing or three.

                    9. Well he’s wrong on this. And the fact that you only refuted him when you thought he was me speaks volumes as to the atmosphere around here. As I said before, this pot’s in need of a stirring.

                    10. I refuted it because it was wrong in my view, regardless of who said it. You might notice I agreed with you both several times. Oh well, enjoy your evening.

                    11. As someone who grew up Baptist going to Bible study 3 hours per week and became Catholic after a year of RCIA classes, you have absolutely zero idea what you are talking about

                    12. The Bible is not the infallible word of God for catholics. Don’t know about Mr. Baker’s sect.

              2. To be honest I still don’t see why discriminating against a behavior you find repellant is wrong.

                It’s not and, unless you think your abstention will precipitate the elimination of such behavior, it’s not even bigoted.

                As a man, I wouldn’t use tampons, that doesn’t make me bigoted against them or menstruation.

            4. Whatever you may think of Phillips’s beliefs, I don’t think “bigot” is the right word for him. Phillips did not object to doing business with customers he knew were gay, including selling them regular off-the-shelf cakes to use in any ceremonies they wanted. The gay couple in the SCOTUS case were regular customers. Phillips just didn’t want to use his design and decorating skills to celebrate same-sex marriages (and assorted other things he believes are wrong), and he conveyed that position in a respectful way when the SCOTUS plaintiffs asked him to make their wedding cake. He did not go out of his way to insult gays.

              1. Would (generic) you engage in homosexual or transexual sex?
                No?
                Then (generic) you’re a bigot… according to some people here.

                1. This has already been established. A trans ‘woman” couldn’t find boys to date “her” because of – bigotry and hate. As if everyone else’s preferences were null and void

                  1. Actually a lot of trannies are straight men, and what they can’t find are women to date them. Lesbians will date a manned trannie, who’s really a woman, but not a womaned trannie, tits or no tits, because men suck.

            5. You do realize, don’t you that, for Christians, the New Testiment, i.e., the Gospel of Jesus, supplanted the Old Testament? The rules of Deuteronomy are no more relevant to a Christian than Jewish dietary rules.

              By every account, Phillips is respectful and friendly to his gay customers. He serves them in the same way he serves all others. But, he declines to make any cakes, for anyone, that convey a message contrary to his religious beliefs (e.g., he won’t make Halloween cakes).

              You, not he, are the one hurling about slurs. If you want to see the bigot, look in the mirror.

              1. OK then, NT it is then. What did Jesus have to say about homosexuality?

            6. The opposition to sodomy is a theme running through the entire Bible, old and new testament. You are misconstruing principles with law. And that’s not equivocating, it’s careful study of the scripture with respect to context. The levitical law prohibited Hebrews from wearing garments with different cloth. We believe that was an object lesson in seperation, but regardless that’s just an interpretation. The sexual prohibitions state “Don’t do this, for it is an abomination.” That gives a law and then gives a reason: God hates it. It is detestable to God when men sleep with men or with animals or whatever. That is God’s opinion on the matter and a Christian who believes that the Bible is God’s literal, inerrant word or even just holy scripture would respect that opinion and be opposed to sodomy just like God is. Even in the new testament where we are no longer under the mosaic law, sodomy is taught as opposed to righteousness. While the ceremonial law is done away with under Christ, Christians actually have a higher standard of righteousness now that the holy spirit lives inside of them and they are redeemed, new creatures.

        2. The cake baker didn’t go shopping around for lawsuits like the TG lawyer did. If he doesn’t want to make cakes celebrating anal-only sex preference does that also make him a bigot, or only in this narrow avenue of sexual kink celebration?

          1. Why lionize the guy? He’s making a stand on principle. I happen to agree with just about everyone here that he should not be forced to bake a cake. No artist should be forced to create art that conflicts with their belief system. I wouldn’t force a Jewish baker to bake a Nazi cake, nor would I force a black photographer to photograph a KKK themed wedding.

            But the guy is a bigot, and he sucks. But bigots deserve protection too under the law.

            1. I suppose it’s enough that you agree. I wasn’t lionizing anything, just pointing out who went out of their way to try and fuck someone over.

            2. “But the guy is a bigot, and he sucks.”

              Prove it

              1. I can’t prove it. I’m agreeing with the Chipper Morning Wood here that all sides suck. I have a right to my opinion that he’s a bigot and have made a case that his extremely selective application of biblical laws is highly suspect. I wouldn’t take away his rights though. That should be enough, right? Or do you need to win so badly that you cannot concede even a little bit of ground?

                1. So then you can’t prove that he is a bigot, but it’s irrefutable that the commission was motivated by religious bigotry. Seems like you just don’t like religious people.

                  1. I don’t like hypocrites – of any political persuasion, color, creed or nationality. I also don’t like group-think and this pot needs stirring.

                    1. “I also don’t like group-think and this pot needs stirring.”

                      And yet you are the one who is pushing the more popular narrative in our culture, complete with the lack of understanding about the specifics of this case and a complete lack of knowledge about Christian beliefs.

                      At the end of the day, all that matters is the rejection of government force in this case. You say you accept that and I’ll take you at your word (a lot of so called libertarians have really become statist assholes on this issue and have shown themselves to be hypocrites). How you arrive at opposing state action is really tangential to the final result.

                    2. Your logic is fascinating. Must I only agree with those I’d seek to protect from force? Because that seems to be your assertion. Principles vs Principals.

                    3. Eric, you calling the baker a bigot is bigoted and hypocritical.

                      That wouldn’t be the case if you’d simply said he’s less tolerant and didn’t run his business to your liking, but you made a value judgement that he is a bigot, stating repeatedly that you are intolerant of his beliefs/practice.
                      You have a right to keep calling the baker a bigot – but you’re going to get pushback.

        3. I also think he sucks for being a bigot. And yes he’s a bigot.

          No, you’re just an idiot. Accepting any and all demands for service isn’t tolerance. So, refusing any or a select few demands for service isn’t intolerance. The baker is a bigot only in the sense that every human on Earth is a bigot.

          1. “The baker is a bigot only in the sense that every human on Earth is a bigot.”

            There you go. I agree that he’s a bigot. Your deliberate obtuseness notwithstanding.

            1. Your deliberate obtuseness notwithstanding.

              Me? You’re the bigot who won’t at least entertain the notion that you’re an idiot.

              1. I’ve noticed a patter with your posts here. Argue, lose, argue in bad faith, lose, call names. I’d stick to the safe confines of the H&R circled wagon’s if I were you too. You’re prey anywhere else.

                1. Dude who has based his entire argument here around broad generalizations and bold pronouncements, absent all supporting evidence, thinks mad.casual is arguing in bad faith?

                2. I’ve noticed a patter with your posts here. Argue, lose, argue in bad faith, lose, call names.

                  That explains your reading comprehension. I usually start with willful misinterpretation, then argue on the facts, call names, shift the narrative, win, and then return to calling names.

                  Sometimes I mix it up by arguing the facts obsessively start to finish, but I wouldn’t expect an illiterate bigot like yourself wouldn’t catch such subtleties.

                  1. “Sometimes I mix it up by arguing the facts obsessively start to finish, but I wouldn’t expect an illiterate bigot like yourself wouldn’t catch such subtleties.”

                    – Thanks man 🙂

                3. mad.casual owned you and you won’t admit it. Refusing service is not “hatred and intolerance” which is the bar for identifying a bigot.

                  Attempting to put someone out of business because they politely refused you service clears the bar of intolerant by a mile and borders on hatred.

                  1. Where did I defend the state in this? IIRC I said that they sucked too upthread.

  4. So does that mean that the tranny lawyer wasted xer time and money? Do you think xe will try again with someone else maybe and waste even more?

    1. That lawyer should be sued for abuse of proceeds, with multiple complaints filed against him with the state bar association.

    2. “It”
      The correct nomenclature is “it”

      1. I call them ‘transtesticles’.

  5. Leftists are not compassionate, empathetic people. Don’t let them lie to you and say this is anything remotely related to helping people.

    This is all about vindictiveness, about forcing people to do something they do not like. It’s why they force pro-life people to pay for Planned Parenthood, and why they force this baker to participate in an event they do not believe in. It has nothing do to with helping people; it’s using their political power to step on people’s necks.

    1. ^this^

      It is about maintaining the power of the State to compel people to obey. Force is a core component of Socialism. At some point, the producers ask why they have to provide for non-producers, and the non-producers have to tell them FYTW. Cops, lawyers, and politicians all agree on this point because very few of them have anything to contribute to society.

      Has anyone ever asked the Tranny lawyer why xe didn’t bake xer own fucking cake?

  6. The case made it all the way to the Supreme Court, where the justices dodged the larger issue of whether the act of making a cake is a form or free expression protected by the First Amendment.

    It’s been my understanding that it wasn’t an issue of making the cake, it was an issue of decorating the cake. The baker offered to sell them any of his ready-made cakes, he declined to decorate it the way they wanted it decorated. Now Wolfgang Puck could credibly argue his food is itself a work of art, Betty Crocker not so much. But cake decorating is certainly a skilled art, an act of expression that baking an otherwise ordinary cake is arguably not. (I don’t think most celebratory cakes are sold on how good they taste, the looks are what matter. And most of them taste like crappy over-worked buttercream icing. Roll a stick of butter in sugar and stick it in a hotdog bun and there’s your crappy cake.)

    1. True – fondant is about what you shapes you can make with it, not how it tastes.

      1. No kidding, I tried working with that stuff once, never again. It’s actually worse than marzipan, and that takes some doing!

      2. Exactly this, fondant tastes like garbage.

    2. “Roll a stick of butter in sugar and stick it in a hotdog bun and there’s your crappy cake”

      Is that a cake or a sandwich?

      1. Is that a cake or a sandwich?

        Sandwich? It’s closer to a cheese cake or a cream pie.

        1. So a hot dog isn’t a sandwich?

          1. So a hot dog isn’t a sandwich?

            So long johns, eclairs, and macaroons are?

            1. *mind blown*

              1. Hold on to your pants: I found authoritative historical evidence that you’re right.

                1. That looks delicious

          2. Breakfast cereal isn’t soup!
            Change my mind.

          3. Sure it is, if you put it in a Twinkie and put Cheez Whiz on it. Anyone who’s watched “UHF” can tell you that!

      2. It’s known as the “Crusty Juggler Special”.

      3. Wrap it in bacon.

    3. Roll a stick of butter in sugar and stick it in a hotdog bun and there’s your crappy cake.

      Rolling ingredients in other ingredients isn’t sufficient. You’ve gotta say that it’s a penis cake in the shape of a vagina.

  7. Gay Jay hardest hit

    1. Looks like Straight Jay wins again.

  8. What needs to be done is eliminate these quasi-judicial commissions staffed by activists empowered to harass private citizens and their businesses to enforce ideological conformity.

    1. Now you understand why some towns elect a dog as mayor. The dog is happy to lick his own balls instead of getting the police chief to force someone else do it.

  9. I don’t blame Phillips for taking the deal, but this does mean the commission will just go after someone else.

    1. That’s why the commission made the deal. Find another heretic to burn for their faith of intersectionality

      1. The lesson they learned is only threaten with lawsuits. If they fight back, drop the case before it hits the SC.

        1. Just before it hits the SC, to do the most amount of damage.

          1. Also, target a less visible, profitable, and amicable baker in such a niche service. They’re going to make absolutely sure that all the Mexican jewelers and women-owned cupcake shops are going to serve everyone equally.

  10. Instead, the justices ruled in a 7-2 decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not been a neutral arbiter examining the rights of all parties involved, and had, in fact, expressed hostility toward Phillips’ religious rights in its decision.

    And when you looked at the makeup of the CRC, it wasn’t hard to come to that conclusion, even without the hearing transcripts. It’s supposed to be a “bipartisan” body, but there was one Republican, alongside three Democrats and three “unaffiliated” with ties to gay rights activist organizations.

    The fact that there’s even a CRC is ridiculous to begin with, as lawsuits can be filed regardless of whether the commission exists or not. It’s simply a means for the state’s Democratic machine to reward lobbyists with a resume-padder and provide them with the chance to nanny-scold with the force of the state behind it.

    The lawsuit by “Autumn” Scardinia should have been thrown out the minute it was filed, considering he’s little more than a serial harasser to Phillips and has made several requests for cakes that he knows would antagonize him.

    1. The lawsuit by “Autumn” Scardinia should have been thrown out the minute it was filed, considering he’s little more than a serial harasser to Phillips and has made several requests for cakes that he knows would antagonize him.

      Dillhole, Esq., needs to get a life.

  11. The courts shit their pc pants and decided that they weren’t competent to do what they’re being paid to do.

    Next!

  12. Comet Ping Pong Pizza has squat cake events where a trans will press their bottom onto a cake and you guess if it was post-op or pre-op.

    I guess the fundraiser for HRC was a hoot when Hilary’s squat imprint elicited varying guesses by the confused guests and had the invitees doubled-up in laffter.

    1. Comet Ping Pong
      Looked them up to see if they were a real thing, and saw their “Shows” calendar.
      Just wow.

      Lyndon LaRouche was right.

  13. Just. Walk. Away.

  14. Yeah, right.

    They’ll be back at him with another suit in a few months when he refuses to bake a Welcome Home cake for the re-settled ISIS brides.

    1. Probably not in his case, given this settlement; They’ve admitted basically that any similar action they take against him is going to get struck down as motivated by the original animus, and they’re at risk of the Court getting ticked at them and resorting to the unthinkable:

      Actually ruling on the real issue.

      1. “and they’re at risk of the Court getting ticked at them and resorting to the unthinkable:Actually ruling on the real issue.”

        well said

    2. He should design a cake just for them, with pork skin icing. If they don’t like it well fuck them.

      1. He should design a cake just for them,

        I was thinking a cake with an abstract crucifixion on top for the CRC. Were it me, I’d have a really hard time not making this cake and sending it with a card saying “Enjoy!”.

  15. Hey, I need some muscle over here.

  16. …she wanted one with a blue exterior and pink interior.

    No win. If he had made it to specs, he would have been sued for it being undercooked.

    1. So a blue waffle, then?

  17. I do not understand why this issue is considered in view to free speech or religion. Certainly, being forced to make people cakes may cause many people to feel like their religious liberty is nonexistant, but this conflict really just points out the ultimate problem of all “antidiscrimination” laws which restrict the reasons by which people are allowed to discriminate.

    A cake baker’s right to choose who and who not to do business with can only be defended with a proper understanding of the property rights of property owners.

    Basically, anyone should be able to kick gay people out of their store, even if they aren’t Christians. Since when does religious liberty allow things only for “religious” people, but not everyone?

    1. I’ve been arguing that it should, properly speaking, be considered a 13th amendment issue. But I seriously doubt there’s more than one or two Justices on the Supreme court interested in stopping the cancerous growth of public accommodation laws, given the firestorm that would result.

      Goldwater was right way back when: The 1964 Civil rights act was a mistake, going after private discrimination was going too far.

      1. Remember early in his political career when Rand Paul brought this up one time, and the media lost its mind, and then he walked it back and never spoke of it again?

        Good times.

        1. Pepperidge farms remembers…

  18. The crazy part is how lawyers like that can file troll cases and not be penalized. How can they get away with causing financial harm to someone just for the hell of it? I wish people like that would get disbarred.

  19. I don’t understand why the baker is a bigot for declining to participate in a gay wedding, but the trans customer isn’t bigoted for declining to give his business to a more trans-friendly wedding vendor?

    1. The entire system of commercial regulation in this country rests on the premise that in all transactions, one party is allowed to discriminate as much as they want based on any criteria they want, while the other must be tightly controlled and regulated.

      It’s completely bizarre, and not even internally consistent (in goods transactions the buyer has all the freedom, but in labor transactions the seller does).

  20. “Phillips also has religious objections to recognizing transgender identities”

    Of course he does.

    What happens when someone has a religious objection to black people eating cake?

    1. Like the apologists for the slave system, Tony wonders if black people will be able to eat without slavery.

    2. Then they decide not to sell cake to black people. Is this a problem?

    3. Tony says the stupidest irrelevant things.

    4. Except he does not have an objection to selling to someone because they are transgender or gay, just selling things that celebrate actions associated with those conditions. Being black is not a behavior.

      1. Potato potato.

        1. It really isn’t Tony. You stupid piece of shit.

  21. This case will be back, as soon as another Christian target can be located. But there will never never never never ever be a test case involving a Muslim business.

  22. SOMEONE needs to find that sexually confused excuse of an attorney, back that creature up against a solid wall, and knock some sense into its cranium. I’d like to know the proffered excuse to explain WHY, knowing Jack Phillips is a principled man who will NOT allow others to dictate his conduct to suit their own perversions, this critter even took the time to ask Mr. Phillips to make the prescribed cake. The attorney KNEW Jack would refuse… got him to do so, and promptly trotted off to the corrupt state administrative law abusers and filed. THAT is lawfare…. and meant to hurt the victim. Dirtbag lawyers like this one need to be taken to task by the State Bar Association, abusing their power as attorneys to harm others. It cost Jack a bunch of time and money to defend the false charges brought by the State of Colorado’s corruptocrats.

    Hah, the legislature ought to issue some clear limits for what that agency can consider actionable. Of course it IS signficant that the admin people hesitated about four tenths of a nanosecond to take advantage of yet one more opportunity to persecute Jack Phillips, the famous baker with integrity and grit.

  23. Yeah, Jack’s a good guy, but I didn’t like the way he caved to the pressure by saying he didn’t “discriminate.” Setting a difference between gays and non-gays is discrimination, and there is no problem with that. Everyone discriminates about some things. He should just own up to the fact that he, as a business owner, discriminates according to his religious beliefs.

    1. You mean he acts in accordance with his religious beliefs.

  24. For some reason, I always seem to side with the guy that doesn’t want to be forced into doing something he doesn’t fucking want to.

  25. “… a transgender attorney contacted Phillips claiming she wanted …” ?? Transgender…she?? Look Reason- if you adopt their definition of words and their social constructs,about gender at the very least you signal that you have acquiesced to their corrupting ideology.

    Is this a homogametic “she” or a heterogametic “she”? Almost certainly this person has XY genetics and is thus heterogametic.

    Here, try this:: “… a heterogametic attorney contacted Phillips claiming to want …” That is totally honest and ideologically neutral.

    You are welcome.

    1. People are entitled to be referred to as they wish. Learn some manners.

      1. Did I mention that I prefer to be called “Your Serene Highness”? Except on Tuesday, when I’m “Your Royal Awesomeness.”

        Oh, and don’t even think about using a sarcastic tone of voice when calling me by my preferred titles.

      2. People are entitled to be referred to as they wish.

        Look at Mr. Science-Denier here.

      3. Nope.

        People are entitled to believe any fantasies they choose, and wish for unicorns and puppies. In anything close to a free society nobody else is required to go along with that insanity.

        1. Etiquette really isn’t negotiable, except in etiquette-expert circles.

  26. CO Govt needs to put down the Bong.

  27. Is involuntary servitude still prohibited by the 13th Amendment? Or are we now able to coerce others into involuntarily service?

    1. Progtards love slavery. They all see themselves as the overseers. Just look at Tony.

  28. I dunno if it was me with the bakery down the street I would just advertise “best trans and gay friendly whatever cakes in town”. But that is just me.

    Heck I paid for my daughters wedding. Do you know what those custom baker people charge for a wedding cake? It is cash up front too.

    The customer, well doubt it would be difficult to find another baker.

    So I think the market can handle this just fine.

    No need for lawsuit crap which just gets the lawyers way more than the damn cake. Don’t even talk about what they bill per hour. The baker probably gets more for a fancy job.

    I don’t even like cake. Bias disclosed.

  29. I don’t agree that this was the best outcome. Phillips has incurred actual damages. The commission and activists will keep bringing harm and litigation. The nonsense needs to stop.

  30. I might be unusual, odd or whatever some might describe me as however if a operator of a business, a baker in this case, chooses not to do business with some person, for whatever reason, or for no reason at all, I would say that that was there choice, especially given that other bakers would happily accommodate the prospective customer. Additionally, the government apparatus of Colorado, in it’s action or antics was, in my view, greviously out of line, and should be billed for ALL costs. In conclusion, if the people of Colorado are less than happy at the expenditure taxpayer monies, they should demand that Colorado government explain, in detail, it’s antics.

    1. The court has no choice really if the suit has even close to a complaint. It comes down to which side has more to gamble with. With a civil case like this it hits the news and people will pony up the money because they are thinking there is some principle to defend. There is not. Only the lawyers win or lose. This is a cake. Not a big deal.

      Court costs are not the issue because those are modest compared to what the litigants spend. My understanding is the court whichever side wins will still not award the loser to pay legal fees to the winner. See how that works?

  31. THINK ABOUT IT?..
    Earning in the modern life is not as difficult as it is thought to be. God has made man for comfort then why we are so stressed. We are giving you the solution of your problems. Come and join us here on just go to home TECH tab at this site and start a fair income bussiness

    >>>>>>>> http://www.Theprocoin.com

  32. Indeed, Gary Johnson was on the side of forcing accommodation as I recall. Still probably the least awful candidate, but not very libertarian to many people that claim it.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.