Posted on 08/15/2018 7:24:38 AM PDT by Ennis85
The Christian baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and was vindicated by the Supreme Court earlier this year is mounting another legal challenge this week after refusing to bake a gender-transitioning cake. Shortly after the Supreme Court ruled in June that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against baker Jack Phillips for his religious beliefs, an attorney requested he create a cake that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside to represent a gender transition from male to female. As a Christian, Mr. Phillips would not make the cake since it conflicted with his beliefs, which was his same reasoning for refusing to bake the same-sex couple’s wedding cake. The state of Colorado has come after Mr. Phillips again, suggesting state law requires him to bake the gender change cake. It’s the newest complaint mounted against him, which has forced Mr. Phillips to file a federal lawsuit Tuesday. “The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, an attorney with Alliance Defending Freedom, a religious liberty law firm defending Mr. Phillips.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtontimes.com ...
So where do you draw the line? I don’t want to serve you because your white, black, tall, short, ugly, fat, slim, Democrap, Republican, gay, straight, American, Portuguese, Jewish, you drive a Ford, or a Chevy?
Anyone who excludes that much of the population won’t be in business for long. Let the free market decide.
I’ve never seen “gender transitioning cakes” on a list of items offered at bakeries
Agreed, let the free market decide
Malicious prosecution.
With the people’s money.
5.56mm
The key to understanding this case is that the baker won. However, since the commission members are individually indemnified, they can act with impunity as they are shielded from official actions.
I would guess the baker's lawyers are exploring the opportunity to pierce that shield, and if successful, these types of harassment lawsuits would cease.
didn’t the SC just recently address a first amendment right to not artistically create something by force?
[[What is needed is for a federal court to clearly recognize the right of the baker to refuse to bake that cake based on his religious beliefs,]]
As well as establish a person’s right to not be forced to create an artistic creation (ie special artistic creation above and beyond what is commonly available in said store) against their will.
I’m no lawyer of course- but it seems to me that an artist shouldn’t be forced to create something special, that is above and beyond what they normally do- I’m not sure if this would fall under the first amendment or not (free speech, as well as freedom from being forced to say something against one’s will)
I suspect this is Kennedy's fault. He probably was unwilling to join a broader ruling, so Roberts could only get a majority by limiting the decision to the issue of bias at the hearing.
If you read through the oral arguments, it was obvious that this is exactly what Kennedy was going for. I brought it up on FR at the time after I'd read through it. It was also pretty obvious that for the 'conservatives' on the court, that they were pretty much begging for a way to get past prior precedent on the 'public accomodation' angle. They are boxed into a corner on that and know it.
It's just harassment, plain and simple.
The gay left are obviously targeting him now. You can’t win a legal battle against them and get away with it. They destroy anyone who goes against them.
The gay mafia will not stop.
Oh It’s all about hitting the lottery and/or running a Christian out of the state.
Geez, you don’t think this guy is being intentionally targeted, huh? That “all inclusive” group isn’t so inclusive after all.
So, the best example of that is a straight person comes into a bakery, and asks to order a cake for the wedding of some gay friends. The baker refuses. in that case, the baker is not discriminating against the customer on the basis of sexual orientation, but rather refusing to make a certain product regardless of who orders it. So, they could make the same refusal if a gay couple came in to order that cake.
Conversely, if a gay couple came in to order a cake for the wedding of a straight friend, the baker could not refuse because that would be discriminating against the customer.
If they had just asked for a pink cake with blue frosting and left out the rest they would have gotten it. That’s why this is just a complete and intentional attempt to get standing and file a lawsuit and they should be counter-sued and punished for abusing the court system.
Apologies. I read “complaint” and thought it was a court pleading (the one that starts a lawsuit), not a complaint to the commission.
I don’t know about you but I have known many gay co workers and family members but never have met any that are truly content and happy (by their own admission). Nothing to do with social acceptance, all about their internal thoughts. Just sayin’
Maim the lawyer
Fear of death is a powerful motivator
*********
Wrong target , his relatives should die at a rate of one a month until he withdraws the suit. Let him live knowing he killed them.
See #5.
See #5.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.