General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsCourt Rules Against Masterpiece Cakeshop Owner Who Refused To Bake Gender Transition Cake
A Colorado Court of Appeals judge ruled against Christian baker Jack Phillips Thursday after he appealed an earlier court decision requiring him to bake a cake for an individual’s gender transition.
Phillips won a previous case at the Supreme Court in 2018 after he declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but was sued again in March 2021, after a transgender individual wanted Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside. Alliance for Defending Freedom (ADF) announced in a press release Thursday that the Colorado Court of Appeals had ruled against Phillips, but said that a plan was already in motion to appeal the ruling.
The court determined that Phillips’ right to religious freedom did not fall under First Amendment protection.
“Turning to the constitutional issues presented, the division concludes that the act of baking a pink cake with blue frosting does not constitute protected speech under the First Amendment,” the court wrote. “Additionally, the division concludes that CADA’s prohibition against discrimination based on a person’s transgender status does not violate a proprietor’s right to freely exercise or express their religion.”
Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman and attorney, attempted to order a cake for a gender transition party on the same day the Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’ case regarding his refusal to bake a cake celebrating a gay wedding, according to ADF’s press release. Phillips said he could not make the cake because it would force him to violate his religious beliefs.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/court-rules-against-masterpiece-cakeshop-owner-who-refused-to-bake-gender-transition-cake/ar-AA16MbYK
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
spinbaby
(15,389 posts)And presumably a party? What a great idea! I have a trans niece and always thought we should have had some kind of event to mark the occasion.
BlueTsunami2018
(4,991 posts)First, it’s idiotic to think making a cake somehow violates a religion. Second, why would you want to do business with an asshole like that? Just go somewhere else.
It all seems so ridiculous to me.
hlthe2b
(113,976 posts)But, as a Coloradoan, I'm damned tired of this baker, who likely would gladly make the most disgustingly sexual cake possible for a heterosexual client or probably a hate- messaged cake directed at other (non-Xian) religions.
It is just time for that idiot to go out of business.
machoneman
(4,128 posts)
ToxMarz
(2,934 posts)Wouldn't fall under free speech or freedom of religion, he'd be more like the thought police.
hlthe2b
(113,976 posts)
lostnfound
(17,520 posts)Should an artist be forced to accept request to paint the crucifixion? A liberal forced to paint trump?
I worry about precedents..
Takket
(23,715 posts)I doubt it was a coincidence a trans person order the cake the same day SCOTUS agreed to hear the high profile gay wedding case.
They probably targeted this baker on purpose knowing damn well the Bible says nothing about transitioning hoping to draw out a refusal that is clearly based on hate and not religion, just so this lawsuit could be filed.
I hope the courts rule in favor of the trans person. I know the lower court did but I expect SCOTUS to throw this out.
scarletlib
(3,568 posts)No telling what might be added to it.. adverse publicity is the better option.
radical noodle
(10,595 posts)I wouldn't want to give the asshole a dime, let alone the price of a cake.
PatSeg
(53,214 posts)the cake that they made. I agree, go somewhere else where you will be welcome.
Buns_of_Fire
(19,161 posts)If "Bakery A" doesn't want to do it, fine. Call up "Bakery B".
On the other hand, hiding behind your religion for the reason to refuse is pretty damned gutless.
I don't give either side any points here.
BlueWaveNeverEnd
(14,260 posts)
Hope22
(4,746 posts)Why weren’t people of color served in the same restaurants as whites? It’s exactly the same thing! Same oven, same pans, bake the d#@$ cake. Where is the line. Does the printer not print the invitations. It’s all fun and games until a Christian doesn’t get his cake baked!
hlthe2b
(113,976 posts)or other racial groups at a restaurant. You can refuse to serve a person for other reasons but not based on immutable factors or a protected group or religious identity. Equal protection. Unless you are an RW SCOTUS member, then Xian religion trumps all. And even with their idiotic prior ruling, there is no free speech religious issue involved in this case--making a simple pink cake with blue icing with no specific labeling of purpose.
sl8
(17,110 posts)Should they just go to another lunch counter?
Buns_of_Fire
(19,161 posts)A lunch counter is (for lack of a better term) a "public access" business. So long as I'm not violating any non-constitutionally-protected standard, I legally have to be served. Given.
But I see the baking of a custom cake as more of a "contract" situation. When I was freelancing, I turned down assignments for no other reason than "I don't wanna work for that company," and that ended the discussion.
sl8
(17,110 posts)There's an artistic, potental 1st amendment issue with baking a cake. I'm not sure that baking a pink & blue cake qualifies, though.
It's the "find someone else that will serve you" aspect that bothers me.
dwnsouth
(53 posts)A cake was offered to all customers. A SPECIFIC artistic request is different. Should the baker be forced to make a cake if the customer requests one of himself copulating with the baker's mother? It's extreme, but you are requesting an artistic contract.
"I'll make you a cake, but not THAT cake." is an acceptable standard. We can't start forcing people to create art/messages against their morals.
Should a print shop be forced to print advertising for a klan gathering? This is a total 1st amendment issue.
dpibel
(3,944 posts)Are motherfuckers?
If not, you have a problem with your legal analysis.
he is not denying service, he is declining specific messages in his art.
dpibel
(3,944 posts)That's a specific message?
I think you may be lost.
He didn't say, "I won't write, 'Trans Is Grate!!' on your cake." He refused to bake the cake. In what world is that not denying service?
Refused to bake THAT cake. I’m not keen on compelling speech. That’s a dangerous two way street. Yes, pink and blue is symbolism. No different than a swastika means something. They are asking him to be party to a celebration of something for which he does not agree. Compelling speech.
If I had a house and hired a house painter to cover it in a garish design. That house painter would be within his rights to say “I’m not putting my name on that work.” For any reason frankly.
dpibel
(3,944 posts)how it works.
I understand that you don't know about balancing rights and protected classes. Not to worry: Justice Alito gets confused about that, too.
Anyway, this pleasant back and forth has got you over 10 posts. I eagerly await your first OP.
Welcome to DU!!!1!
The baker was fine with making a pink & blue cake until he learned of the occasion the buyer was celebrating.
My crummy analogy would be a bookseller that refuses to sell Bibles to Muslims or Korans to Christians, because they don't know why the buyer wants it. The seller is basing their decision to sell on the religion of the buyer. Religion, like sexual preference, is a protected class.
You may be right, though. There is a 1A argument to be made, I'm just not sure it outweighs the 'discrimination against a protected class' argument.
dwnsouth
(53 posts)It's a fair but flawed analogy. Bibles and Korans are pre-existing items. The bookseller should not be forced to write a book stating something against his religion. If the bookseller is Muslim, should he be forced to make a custom cover for the bible that says "this book is way better than the Koran?"
You may be adamantly against his beliefs, but we used to have a constitution that allowed differing beliefs. He's not refusing to serve the customer, he's just not willing to create messages against his beliefs. We've expanded well beyond tolerance and trying to force the celebration of un-held beliefs. It is counterproductive to progress.
sl8
(17,110 posts)In this case he's perfectly fine with making pink & blue cakes, but not for this customer/occasion.
To use your example of somone making book covers, I agree that you can't make them write anything in particular. But if you're fine with making and selling book covers that say "God is great", you can't refuse to make or sell one based on the customer's religion, even if you happen to think that their religion is wrong.
We're down to symbolism, which is why I view it as a case of free speech. Or in this case, compelled speech.
He would sell a pink and blue cake, but the moment the customer proclaims the cake symbolizes something he is against, his freedom of speech comes into play. If the customer quietly walked into the store, bought the pink/blue cake and left, no issues.
In this case the customer has proclaimed the symbolism of this cake is against the baker's values. The baker should not be compelled to generate speech against his values.
hlthe2b
(113,976 posts)to provide their chosen SERVICE. Thus, they are not allowed to discriminate. If they only want to serve a limited segment of the population it would be a private CLUB (with a likely requirement, nonetheless, for a health-safety inspection license since they regularly prepare food). But they set it up as a business--for profit--to serve the public.
Irish_Dem
(81,277 posts)Woman could not get credit cards or open bank accounts in their name.
They could not go into certain establishments which sold alcohol.
POC could not go into a restaurant and order a cup of coffee.
Jews could not rent a room in a hotel
(These are just a few small examples, the discrimination was widespread and pervasive.)
They couldn't just go to another company, all of society was shunning them.
Once one place discriminates against a group, it is slippery slope to total societal discrimination.
Buns_of_Fire
(19,161 posts)Irish_Dem
(81,277 posts)You made my day.
mountain grammy
(29,035 posts)And I’m 75. Yes. Not that long ago. Fuck these haters that hide behind religion.
Irish_Dem
(81,277 posts)to buy birth control back in the 50's.
And yes we also remember having to have husband or father sign
us up for a bank account. Even if we were earning good money.
These people today don't really care about religion.
It is just an excuse to hate other people and be cruel and controlling.
Karma13612
(4,982 posts)It’s possible this Masterpiece Cakes baker is probably exceptionally good at what he does. And there might not be another bakery of his caliber within a reasonable geographical distance for the customer.
Loki Liesmith
(4,602 posts)If it gets to the supremes.
fescuerescue
(4,475 posts)Cake hate has been problem with almost 2 decades now.
To solve this ongoing nightmare of cake hate, Congress should define a comprehensive list of cakes and their recipes that every baker in the US should be required to make, with defined harsh penalties for refusing bake them, as well a freshness guidelines.
treestar
(82,383 posts)in which these issues are brought to the fore.
It shows that the right wing Christians do have freedom of religion - no one stops them from going to church or praying or practicing their religion. So they have to create a situation.
niyad
(132,450 posts)response would be, "So sorry, I am completely booked for that time." But some people have to be martyrs for their hate-filled "faith".
On the opposite reaction. . many years ago, I was ordering a cake for our Susan B. Anthony birthday party. The baker told me he had never had such an order, but was fascinated. He even asked if I wanted pink roses. I cracked up. He did a beautiful job, including the suffrage colours, and "Votes for Women" in beautiful scrollwork. He told me it was one of the most interesting cakes he had done. Alas, I lost the photos in a move.
BlueWaveNeverEnd
(14,260 posts)brooklynite
(96,882 posts)They ruled that the CO State Govt applied arbitrary rules in their initial lawsuit.
Initech
(108,783 posts)Why do people keep patronizing this guy? 
BlueWaveNeverEnd
(14,260 posts)
treestar
(82,383 posts)What if someone wanted a Nazi cake? A swastika?
Elessar Zappa
(16,385 posts)LGBTQ is. You also can’t deny based on race, religion, country of origin, or gender. But you could refuse Nazis, Democrats, left-handed people, etc.