MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Can a Baker Be Forced to Make a Transgender Celebration Cake?

Masterpiece Cakeshop is back with a new lawsuit over another rejection.

CakePuhhha / Dreamstime.comMasterpiece Cakeshop is back in the news with a lawsuit, but this time it's not about gay wedding cakes. Instead, it's a brand new fight over whether the government can force a baker to produce a cake celebrating a transgender person's new identity.

Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, was the focus of a Supreme Court ruling earlier this year. After its owner, Jack Phillips, refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, the state's civil rights commission ruled that he had violated Colorado's public accommodation law, which forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. Phillips said he wasn't discriminating against gay people but objected to doing work that violated his religious beliefs by implying support for same-sex marriage.

The Supreme Court ruled, 7-2, in Phillips' favor. But it did so in a carefully worded ruling that did not address the issue of whether a wedding cake is a form of artistic expression or whether Phillips could be compelled to make wedding cakes for all couples. Rather, the Court ruled that the Colorado's Civil Rights Commission had violated the First Amendment by approaching the case with a clear animus against Phillips' religious beliefs.

Judging from a new federal lawsuit filed by the bakery, the commission is not backing down. On the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Phillips' case, he says he got a call from a lawyer named Autumn Scardina, who asked if he would make a custom cake with a "blue exterior and a pink interior" to reflect Scardina's transition from male to female.

Just as Phillips has religious objections to recognizing same-sex marriages, he has religious objections to embracing sex changes. He declined to make the cake for Scardina, and she complained to the commission, which is coming after him again. According to Phillips' lawsuit, the commission is ignoring his explanation that he objects to the message Scardina wants him to express with the cake and is instead claiming that he is refusing to serve Scardina due to her transgender status. The lawsuit also notes that Scardina's web page says she handles LGBT discrimination cases, suggesting this call was more than a strange coincidence.

Phillips, represented again by the Alliance Defending Freedom, argues that the commission is still singling him out because of his religious beliefs. Colorado generally does not force bakers to promote messages with which they disagree. A baker could refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay or anti-transgender message, for instance. The lawsuit even cites a case where the same commission ruled in favor of a baker who refused an order for cakes with anti-gay messages. Phillips says the commission is denying him the same right out of anti-religious prejudice.

If anything, this dispute seems even more clear-cut than the wedding cake case, where one of the central issues was whether producing the cake was a form of expression. In this case, Scardina specifically asked for a cake that expressed how she felt about being transgender. It clearly was intended to communicate a message.

Phillips claims the commission is violating his religious freedom and his freedom of speech, which includes protection against compelled speech. He is asking for an injunction to stop Colorado from enforcing its law in this fashion and seeking $100,000 in damages.

Read the lawsuit here.

Photo Credit: Puhhha / Dreamstime.com

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.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    Honestly I prefer pies at this point.

    Cupcakes for me, thanks.

  • Juice||

    Vegan cupcakes are the best cupcakes. I don't know why, but they're the moistest, richest cupcakes you can buy. I think it has something to do with the touch of apple cider vinegar in them, but damn they're good.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    I'm good without going vegan. I just keep all of my women lactating to make my dairy products.

  • perlchpr||

    Immortan Joe approves.

  • Atlas Slugged||

    You are so completely correct. I thought the idea was ludicrous until I tried them and I am transformed. Sticky Fingers bakery has THE BEST cupcakes in DC; those crap ones from Georgetown taste like sawdust compared to them.

  • Fist of Etiquette||

    On the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Phillips' case, he says he got a call from a lawyer named Autumn Scardina, who asked if he would make a custom cake with a "blue exterior and a pink interior" to reflect Scardina's transition from male to female.

    That's quite a coincidence. I kind of hope that he makes as many Supreme Court appearances as there are types of baked goods and sexual identities.

  • Eddy||

    42 each?

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Yeah, but most of the cakes are fish flavored. :)

  • lap83||

    We're all pink on the inside and none of us should be blue on the outside

  • Juice||

    Colloidal silver only in moderation.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    So the woman who called Masterpiece Cakeshop and asked for a cake celebrating her transition was "stunned" to discover they wouldn't.

    The date in question-- June 26, 2017-- is the same day SCOTUS granted cert to the Masterpiece case.

    She's a local lawyer.

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    No Agenda.
    Right.
    No Agenda.

  • loveconstitution1789||

    The Lefties are trying to bankrupt a small business and this should be blasted on the news every day.

    Lefties hate business, freedom, rights, and religion.

    This will be another win for the baker.

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    COLORADO IS GOING AFTER JACK PHILLIPS OF MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP AGAIN
    In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.

  • Eddy||

    It would be hilarious if Phillips could prove this.

  • ||

    Would/Could the Civil Rights Commission disbar him?

  • Rossami||

    No. Only the senior court in the jurisdiction can disbar a lawyer. The Civil Rights Commission could, however, file a complaint that would start the process.

    They could also use their own procedures to designate the complaintant (regardless of status as a lawyer) as a "vexatious litigator" (or whatever their local equivalent is) and either refuse to consider future complaints or require additional verification before considering future complaints.

  • Mickey Rat||

    But they probably will not, as the controlling majority are activists.

    These commissions should be disallowed from exercising pseudo-judicial authority. The kind of people who likely would want to serve in such a role are unlikely to be interested in offering dispassionate judgement.

  • Daniel||

    "In September 2017, a caller asked Phillips to design a birthday cake for Satan that would feature an image of Satan smoking marijuana. The name "Scardina" appeared on the caller identification. A few days earlier, a person had emailed Jack asking for a cake with a similar theme — except featuring "an upside-down cross, under the head of Lucifer." This same emailer reminded Phillips that "religion is a protected class."

    On the very day that Phillips won his case at the Supreme Court, a person emailed with yet another deliberately offensive design request:

    I'm thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting. And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9″ black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake. I can provide it for you if you don't have the means to procure one yourself.

    And finally, two days later, a person identifying as "Autumn Marie" visited Phillips's shop and requested a cake featuring a pentagram. According to ADF, "Phillips believes that person was Autumn Scardina."

  • Longtorso, Johnny||

    Bake the cake, bigots:

    Outrage of the Week: Shopify Targets America's Guns
    Hundreds of firearms retailers may have to close soon because a powerful Canadian tech company, Shopify, recently decided it was anti-gun and issued an ultimatum: Do business our way or not at all.

    Spike's Tactical, a Florida-based firearms manufacturer and retailer, is just one of the businesses who received an alarming email from its online store management platform, Shopify— a company used by more than 600,000 merchants that offers a one-stop shop for retail businesses by handling everything from website development and marketing, to inventory management, payments, and shipping.

    ...Aside from how Shopify's new policy will affect his business, Leleux says what bothers him most is the hypocrisy. When deciding whether to contract with the company, Leleux says Shopify assured him it was firearm-friendly and he would have no problems. Shopify's about-face came after Leleux spent $100,000 and signed the contract.

  • Eddy||

    Sounds like Leleux should get a lawyer.

  • Eddy||

    Wait, let me try that again:

    Sounds liek LeLeux should get a LeLawyer.

  • Juice||

    It would really suck if he didn't have that promise in writing.

  • ||

    This kind of sounds like bullshit since however much ay of us like it, under federal law as it now exists, only FFL holders can buy firearms "on the internet". All other peasants must take possession face to face with the seller (and in the case of licensed dealers must complete an instant background check).

  • TangoDelta||

    Nah, you typically just have to have it shipped to an FFL and that only applies to complete firearms or the serialized component like the frame or lower receiver. You can buy all the other parts and miscellaneous 80% paperweights just fine. Some of the vendors are even nice enough to ship the parts to you in a plain brown box that doesn't scream "gun parts inside" which is a particular bonus here in Cali.

  • IceTrey||

    No anyone can buy it just has to be shipped to an FFL.

  • Paloma||

    But can he get his $100,000 back?

  • TangoDelta||

    Nice! Sounds like it's time to get into the online store management business with a firearms specialty. Should I call it Gunify, Shotify, or Shootify? Feel free to make other suggestions if you don't like any of mine.

  • IceTrey||

    Shotify obviously.

  • perlchpr||

    Seconding "Shotify".

  • sharmota4zeb||

    This is ridiculous. You cannot compel someone to express something with laws. Do we need some sit-ins to counter protest the modern day inquisition?

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Posted this morning:

    Digging into the Colorado Civil Rights Commission reveals some interesting details. It's supposed to be a bi-partisan body, with an equal number of Republican and Democrat members. Here's the actual makeup:

    Anthony Aragon, Democrat, Representing State or Local Government Entities, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
    Miguel "Michael" Rene Elias, Republican, Representing Community at Large, Pueblo (term expires: 3/13/20)
    Carol Fabrizio, Unaffiliated, Representing Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
    Charles Garcia, Democrat, Representing Community at Large, Denver (term expires: 3/13/21)
    Rita Lewis, Democrat, Representing Small Business, Denver (term expires: 3/16/19)
    Jessica Pocock, Unaffiliated, Representing Community at Large, Colorado Springs (term expires: 3/13/20)

    Of those "unaffiliated" members, Fabrizio is a lesbian and Pocock is a political gay rights activist.

    Gee, wonder why the commission has specifically targeted the bakery and made derogatory comments about the owner's religion during the hearings?

    Also, one of the previous commission members during the period when the suit was brought, Heidi Hess, is a lesbian and gay rights activist, who had been re-appointed by Hickenlooper this past spring only to have the appointment blocked by the Republicans in the state legislature.

  • Red Rocks White Privilege||

    Bonus on Anthony Aragon--he moonlights as a drag queen called Lushus La'Rell.

    Yeah, this was a totes unbiased investigation and wasn't driven at all by personal feelings.

  • ||

    Of those "unaffiliated" members, Fabrizio is a lesbian and Pocock is a political gay rights activist.

    Gee, wonder why the commission has specifically targeted the bakery and made derogatory comments about the owner's religion during the hearings?

    Also, one of the previous commission members during the period when the suit was brought, Heidi Hess, is a lesbian and gay rights activist, who had been re-appointed by Hickenlooper this past spring only to have the appointment blocked by the Republicans in the state legislature.

    Well, duh. Just ask Chicago. If you let civilians run the police review board, then police might be held accountable. Similarly, you have to have a Civil Rights Commission packed with Democrats and other-identifying individuals or else the wrong decisions might be made. The average person can't be relied upon to know a hate crime or a Jew bigot when they see one.

  • ||

    who asked if he would make a custom cake with a "blue exterior and a pink interior" to reflect Scardina's transition from male to female

    Again, subconscious actions betraying the inner workings of the person's mind. A true transgender (activist) would've ordered a blue and a pink cake and insisted that, half way through the event, the cakes be switched. That or ordered a blue cake and then insist that, again sometime during the event, the blue icing be scraped off and pink icing slathered on.

  • lap83||

    That would make for an excellent reality tv show...SJWzillas? we can workshop the title

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    "SJWzillas?"

    Next Bravo hit show.

  • Brian||

    "Gay is so 20 years ago. Nowadays, if you're not choosing exotic genders, you're boring.

    Ok: so what dress size can I get you guys?"

  • TangoDelta||

    Can I just go all throwback and get assless chaps? You know they're like a mullet, business in the front - party in the back.

  • Aloysious||

    I self identify as a blender, so whatever size fits that.

  • Ramer||

    This is a manufactured complaint -- there is no way this "customer" would even want this religious baker to bake a specialty cake that the baker thinks is a sin. This should be left to the market -- persons who don't want super religious bakers with what they consider to be bias views won't shop there.

    This is similar to the problem of "drive by" ADA lawsuits where lawyers just drive around looking for business without sufficient wheel chair ramps a sue, but never had any intent to visit the business. See
    http://www.orlandosentinel.com.....tory.html#

    It is also is a perfect example of the same fake outrage claim that the NYT used to defend its new racist editor -- "no one was really offended"

  • perlchpr||

    "And they are asking for ideas on how to discipline those attorneys."

    Disbarment?

  • Entropy Drehmaschine Void||

    Dismemberment?

    Disembowelment?

    Defenestration?

    Why not all three?

  • Curly4||

    Ramer, what is wrong with you? You speak with to much common sense! Because of that many will not understand you.

  • Tony||

    Just as Phillips has religious objections to recognizing same-sex marriages, he has religious objections to embracing sex changes.

    What a shocking coincidence.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

  • Tony||

    There are no gods so I have no interest in opinions that invoke their existence.

  • Fancylad||

    You're a living parody, aren't you.

    *Tony sneezes*
    Normal person: Bless you.
    Tony:Therearenogodsskyfairy (huh,huh) cosmicgenieflyingspaghettimonster (huh,huh) Dawkinssaysreligionis (huh,huh) oppressionIbelieveinreasonandintellect...

  • Curly4||

    Is that not his business? If he wants to reduce his income by not baking that cake why should he be forced to do so. There are other bakers that is more than willing to bake the cake and take the money.

  • Get To Da Chippah||

    Because Democrats have always favored slavery.

  • sharmota4zeb||

    Tony, I'm on the fence about a decision, so I'll let you decide. I've got plenty of Mohamed cartoon postcards advertising my LGBT erotic novel about polyandry. Should I send them to her with a request to hire her written on them? I need to hire a lawyer to incorporate a media business, and she obviously has the gumption to confront religiously motivated homophobia and the skills to argue a case all the way to the Supreme Court.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    "In the real world, the woman with a graduate degree who knows your favorite Kerouac passage...

    Swipe left...

  • Tony||

    What if you have a burning passion and talent for making cakes but an equally scorching hatred of weddings?

    I know! Don't be a pussy and expect the world to revolve around your minor discomforts.*

    *Applicable to all religious conservatives and Republicans and, yes, a few progressive college kids

  • Just Say'n||

    I can't think of a dumber comparison than what you provided

  • Harvard||

    He does queer things.

  • Giant Realistic Flying Tiger||

    I laughed.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I have no problem with someone trying that business model and succeeding or failing as the market dictates.

    Masterpiece Cakes is not asking to be protected from the economic consequences of its owner's moral decisions, it is asking not to be legally punished for making ones the government deems wrong.

  • Brian||

    I'm sorry: you got some coherent point out of that question, that warranted a reply?

    Do share.

    I'm pretty sure people make cakes for reasons other than weddings all the time.

  • Mickey Rat||

    I saw a point. I cannot really say it was coherent.

  • Paloma||

    The law's the law. What would we be if everyone could just disobey the law?

  • Tony||

    Make a name for yourself as the baked goods provider endorsed by the Lord Himself and you might see your business booming. That's what would happen in a majority Christian bigot community.

    The rules against not discriminating are not in fact targeted at profits, but at behavior owed to society, the same way you want the law to target the behavior of thieves and trespassers.

  • Mickey Rat||

    The only behavior owed to society is to not violate other people's rights. Philips has violated no one's rights. No one has a right to his work without his consent.

    All else is beyond the government's scope of work.

  • perlchpr||

    but at behavior owed to society

    The only behaviour owed to society is to not shoot the people he tells to leave, for trespassing, until they've had a chance to comply.

  • rudehost||

    I hear slave owners said this regularly to the people they were forcing to pick cotton.

    "Don't be a pussy just do the work" even found its way into some spirituals. Sure maybe not the popular ones but some spirituals.

  • Tony||

    The aptness of this analogy cannot be understated.

  • Curly4||

    Can an artists be forced to paint a picture that the artists does not want to paint? I would think not. So should a baker be forced to make a cake to celebrate something that he does not believe in? Just remember that this is just much an art at painting a picture. I would hope not. But let us take it a little further. Should a carpenter be forced to build a house for a person when he does not want to build that house or even work for that person. I don't think so. The person wanting the work done would want someone who wants to build the house and wants to work for him. This business in Colorado has been taken much to far.

  • MasterThief||

    ^This.
    Why would a person be forced into a contract with another person that he/she doesn't want? If I want custom work done by a specific person then I'd assume he has the right to refuse if he doesn't like my face, hates whites, men, or any other reason. My desire does not necessitate he use his time and resources to achieve it.

  • Ramer||

    Unfortunately at least one Arizona court thinks you can be forced to paint a picture -- Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix (June 7, 2018) (company's custom-made art projects for weddings is not expressive conduct so company can be compelled to create art works for same-sex weddings).

    I would argue that there is a line between putting together an Ikea bookshelf (not expressive) and creating a painting (expressive) but it's a hard one to draw. That is why I think a test that looks at whether the customer would want this person performing the task creates a better, market based test.

  • Tony||

    Talking about an artist who produces art he hopes to sell, or an artist people pay to create what they want him to?

  • Paloma||

    . But if I were forced to bake a cake, I'd make a terrible one. Omit the sugar, for instance. It's "art" after all.

  • DajjaI||

    I know some trans people and they are pretty miserable creatures. I sent an email to this gal offering emotional support for whatever she's going through. But I reminded her: Woman does not live by cake alone.

  • Anna from MT||

    "On the same day that the Supreme Court agreed to hear Phillips' case, he says he got a call from a LAWYER" - this is the root of the problem. This country is infested by lawyers to the degree that it cannot breathe any more. These social parasites would not stop unless they will destroy everything good which this country still has.They created a system where only money have rights and only the ones who don't have enough money have responsibilities. This baker should've refuse to provide his services to Autumn Scardina on the account that 'xe' is a lawyer and therefore a disgrace of a human being, not because 'xe' decided to become a woman.

  • Number 2||

    Hey, it's easier to chase a cake than to chase an ambulance.

  • TangoDelta||

    The thing is this person had an easy win/win. If he bakes the cake, the story would be about the hypocrite baker and if he doesn't the militant board is handed another stick with which to try beating him. It's the case only a sycophant lawyer dreams of laying at the feet of their political BDSM masters.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    he says he got a call from a lawyer named Autumn Scardina, who asked if he would make a custom cake with a "blue exterior and a pink interior" to reflect Scardina's transition from male to female.

    There you are, trying to get the hot crossed buns out for the morning rush, when you get a call from a lawyer who's asking you to bake a rather odd cake. The next thing you know, you're into $4,000,000 in legal bills and your name is plastered all over the New York Times and Mara Liasson at NPR wants to grill you over your hateful beliefs.

  • EscherEnigma||

    Left out the important detail that (A) it was a birthday cake, and (B) once again, they didn't have a problem with the cake ... until they found out who it was for.

    That said, I think this is the first time one of these stories actually features a guy that was targeted. So that's kind of novel. But that's the only novel part, as we've already had this baker, we've already had bakers refusing birthday cakes, already had bakers initially afternoon and then recanting when they learn now about the customer and so-on.

    I suppose we have "heard" about malicious LGBT folk hunting down religious bakers, but this is the first one that sounds accurate and not just an attempt to discredit the plaintiffs.

    That said, the commission is "coming after" him? They got a complaint, but they didn't initiate the process. So unless you're trying to argue collision between the commission and the plaintiff, that's not an appropriate description of events.

  • Brian||

    "he got a call from a lawyer named Autumn Scardina, who asked if he would make a custom cake with a "blue exterior and a pink interior" to reflect Scardina's transition from male to female."

    It looks like he was specifically asked to make a "let's celebrate your gender transition!" cake.

    Which seems just a silly repeat of the last lawsuit.

  • Diane Reynolds (Paul.)||

    Which seems just a silly repeat of the last lawsuit.

    As long as we gettin' paid...

  • EscherEnigma||

    Yes, this article is leaving out important details. That's what I'm saying.

  • Eddy||

    "malicious LGBT folk hunting down religious bakers"

    What else would you call someone who files a complaint after discovering that a business has conscientious scruples about helping with their special ceremony, though there are plenty of other businesses willing to help?

    Instead of going to someone who would love to cater their gay wedding/transition celebration, single out and harass the rare person who says no to extra business. Sounds like "hunting down" to me, whether it started out that way or not.

  • EscherEnigma||

    What else would you call someone who files a complaint after discovering that a business has conscientious scruples about helping with their special ceremony, though there are plenty of other businesses willing to help?
    American. There are hundreds of non-discrimination law-suits every year. There have been a dozen over the past ten that involve LGBT folk.

  • damikesc||

    Left out the important detail that (A) it was a birthday cake

    Wasn't his birthday. It was the day he decided he felt like a woman now. They're not synonymous or even comparable.

    That said, the commission is "coming after" him? They got a complaint, but they didn't initiate the process. So unless you're trying to argue collision between the commission and the plaintiff, that's not an appropriate description of events.

    It's an even more laughable case than the one they lost in SCOTUS.

    Perhaps somebody should question the Constitutionality of those commissions...

  • MasterThief||

    "Colorado generally does not force bakers to promote messages with which they disagree. A baker could refuse to make a cake with an anti-gay or anti-transgender message, for instance."
    I notice something here that doesn't really support the point he was trying to make. His examples are in defense of a "protected class." Can a baker refuse something related to Satanism, pornography, drugs, vulgarity, nazism, etc.? If they can refuse an anti-gay commission then why couldn't a pro-gay message be refused? The law is blatantly one-sided and is in opposition to free speech in its practice.
    Is it so difficult to allow the business to choose what specialty items they make for any reason? Let's say I do custom auto work and I'm asked to restore a Model T with a pink Barbie paint job. Let's assume the customer has no limit on cost and I'm capable of doing the job. I'm not interested in taking on this job and would really find it to be a shame to do that to such a car. Aside from that, I wouldn't want that car out there representing my work. Can I turn this proposal down due to my bias against the concept? Can I choose how my time and resources are used as well as what products I make to represent my work? If the answer to all of this is yes, then does the answer change any if I am refusing the job simply because I hate women?

  • EscherEnigma||

    Phillip's continued problem is that he hasn't been refusing any specific design or art. In the first case, he refused when he learned there was no bride. The actual design of the cake was never discussed. In this case, the design was discussed and generally agreed to, but when the customer have some more personal information Phillip's declined.

    In both cases, his refusal was not contingent on the art, design, decoration or anything about the cakes themselves, it was all about the customer.

    So your example would be more like if you got s request for a Barbie-themed car, which you initially agreed to, but when the customer showed up in person you refused because they were a man.

  • MasterThief||

    And I don't see why I wouldn't be allowed to refuse to do that project even if my only objection was that it was for a man. Could I refuse to do it because the person is rich and I detest the wealthy? It's still my time and resources. Until a contract is agreed upon, I have no obligation to provide any goods or services.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I'd you're objecting to the CRA all-together, you should probably lead with that.

  • MasterThief||

    I think you should consider the implications of how the CRA is being applied. We are talking about custom contracted works by a small business. This is a major infringement upon some basic freedoms and if the CRA or interpretations of it are justification then I have no problem objecting to the CRA.
    Let's consider this from a different angle. Does an artist have any discretion in choosing to take on a contract if the art will be used in a way he/she disapproves of? Can I refuse to paint a picture when I know the customer intends to burn it? Can I refuse to make a cast of a young boy's fist if I know the customer intends to use it for anal penetration? Can I refuse to make a Gadsden flag for a NAZI if I know he will use it in a march and associate both the flag and my work with his ideology? A creator should have a large amount of discretion in choosing whether to create something based upon what that item is, how it is used, and I'd even say based upon who it is for.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    Prog answers to your questions.

    Yes, because art is too precious.

    Yes, same.

    No, because gays.

    Yes, because all Nazis should be punched and never provided any products, including for health and nourishment.

  • EscherEnigma||

    I think you should consider the implications of how the CRA is being applied.
    If you want to have that conversation go for it, I was answering a different question.

  • Fuck you, Shikha (Nunya)||

    And why not throw out the CRA here? It was intended to resolve issues that were rampant in society. Not ensuring every single individual must always concede every thought that only certain individuals set forth. If you can go down the street to any number of bakeries to receive your desired cake then what really is their damage?

  • perlchpr||

    If you can go down the street to any number of bakeries to receive your desired cake then what really is their damage?

    They claim psychic damage from the rejection of not being loved by every last motherfucker on the planet.

  • EscherEnigma||

    And why not throw out the CRA here?


    Well, that's a different question then I was answering, for one.

    For another, if that's what you want to do, go for it. I won't argue against it.

    What I consistently argue against is maintaining the status quo for other protected classes while calling out specific exceptions to allow discrimination against LGBT people, and against LGBT people only. Either we all have to play nice or we're all allowed to bring out the long knives. You don't get long knives while I have to play nice.

  • Brian||

    Not really.

    What you need is a lawyer to show up and say "I'm gay. I'd like a cake." And have that guy refused. But, then, for obvious reasons, that's not what happened.

    You're trying very hard to skip the "let's celebrate things against your religion!" context in this, which is more than just who the recipient is for.

    Or, let's say this: do you think this cake baker would be glad to sell a straight person a cake celebrating transgenders, as long as he knew that only straight people would be given it?

    I seriously doubt it.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The "I'm gay, I'd like a cake" was the first Masterpiece Cakeshop case, remember? That's the one where he refused them without hearing about the cake at all.

    In *this* case, they were down with the design of the birthday cake, right up until the lawyer mentioned they were trans, whereupon the bakery baked out.

    The common element in both cases, that is missing from Azucar Bakery, is that the actual design/art of the cake was not, in either case, the basis for refusal. In both of Phillip's cases he refused because he learned more about who it was for.

    In Azucar Bakery, the shop only refused specific images and text, but was willing to sell him a Bible-shaped cake for his anti-LGBT event. Just not with slurs and calls to murder on it.

    As far as celebrating goes, that argument has failed on every court it's been tried. When that changes, I'll include it in my explanations of how non-discrimination law works. Until then, claiming to be discriminating an *event*, not a *person* is only useful for getting public sympathy, not in court.

  • Eddy||

    "he learned more about who it was for"

    He learned *what* it was for - a celebration of something he considered wrong.

    Like the Aryan Nations Church wanting a cake for Bull Connor's birthday, which they intend to celebrate as a religious ceremony. Religious discrimination! And it has nothing to do with the design of the cake!

  • Eddy||

    I mean, it's not like they want candles shaped like fire-hoses, or anything like that.

  • Eddy||

    Or maybe you're against civil rights and want to discriminate against these poor Aryan Nations people just for who they are?

  • Brian||

    "The "I'm gay, I'd like a cake" was the first Masterpiece Cakeshop case, remember? That's the one where he refused them without hearing about the cake at all."

    Seriously? So the cake baker just threw out a guess that the gay guy wanted a wedding cake for a gay wedding, and he just happened to be right? Please. Let's not play pretend games to make all of this work.

    You seem to be "throwing out details".

  • EscherEnigma||

    Let's not play pretend games to make all of this work.


    The "play pretend" is the discussion about a hypothetical Barbie car. In reference to Masterpiece Cakeshop and Azucar Bakery, I've just been reporting what actually happened. No "pretend" at all.

  • Brian||

    You're assertion for Masterpiece Cakeshop that "he refused them without hearing about the cake at all" is completely disproven by simple wikipedia reading (see below).

  • Brian||

    "As far as celebrating goes, that argument has failed on every court it's been tried."

    Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

    "Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store."

    I think that one worked out in the Supreme Court, if that counts.

  • EscherEnigma||

    The SCOTUS's Masterpiece Cakeshop decision very explicitly did not rule on the merits of the case, and very narrowly focused on the language from the Colorado Civil Right's Commission to rule that the commission had been unconstitutionally hostile to Phillip's religion.

    They did not change precedent about objecting to events but not people (that the argument doesn't work) or the status of bakeries as public accommodations (when they have a public storefront, they are).

    So yes, it "worked out" in the SCOTUS. But not in the way you think it did. It was a narrow decision that guaranteed that similar cases will be back in front of the SCOTUS before long.

  • Brian||

    "that the argument doesn't work"

    If it was that obvious, then it would never have gone to SCOTUS in the first place.

    And, frankly, if you're so concerned about the precedent of objecting to events and not people, you wouldn't be so eager to claim it's about people, not events, which is completely disproven by simple wikipedia readings.

  • Brian||

    "The "I'm gay, I'd like a cake" was the first Masterpiece Cakeshop case, remember? That's the one where he refused them without hearing about the cake at all."

    Seriously? So the cake baker just threw out a guess that the gay guy wanted a wedding cake for a gay wedding, and he just happened to be right? Please. Let's not play pretend games to make all of this work.

    You seem to be "throwing out details".

  • Johnimo||

    Should I be forced to put a swastika on a wedding cake for a Nazi couple? I think not. This needs to go to the Supremes and be settled once and for all. It's not like they can't find a sympathetic baker, but rather they are singling out this particular baker because they don't like him. We need to start sending him money to help with his defense.

    I've been a Baker all my life.

  • Just Say'n||

    Thank you for your pastries

  • perlchpr||

    Just in case anyone was still wondering: Yes, it's about beating people up with the law, not "acceptance".

  • General_Tso||

    Will the same commission be looking into businesses that refuse service to police officers?

  • Harvard||

    Silliness. Bake the fairy a cake to end all cakes. Mine would find the "couple" shitting themselves silly.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Instead, it's a brand new fight over whether the government can force a baker to produce a cake celebrating a transgender person's new identity."'

    I wonder if the lady lawyer is in fact a transgender person with a new identity. If not, she does not have standing.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online