Now it’s just malicious. One would think there would be repercussions to the attorney.
There very well could be, if the baker's counsel has the guts to ask for them, or if the judge is annoyed enough.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 11
(b) Representations to the Court. By presenting to the court a pleading, written motion, or other paper—whether by signing, filing, submitting, or later advocating it—an attorney or unrepresented party certifies that to the best of the person's knowledge, information, and belief, formed after an inquiry reasonable under the circumstances:
(1) it is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, cause unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation;
[ * * * ]
(c) Sanctions.
(1) In General. If, after notice and a reasonable opportunity to respond, the court determines that Rule 11(b) has been violated, the court may impose an appropriate sanction on any attorney, law firm, or party that violated the rule or is responsible for the violation.
[ * * * ]
(4) Nature of a Sanction. A sanction imposed under this rule must be limited to what suffices to deter repetition of the conduct or comparable conduct by others similarly situated.
I don't see a hope at Rule 11 sanctions. First of all, the baker filed the federal lawsuit, and the state hasn't even responded yet. So there can't be any Rule 11 sanctions yet because the state hasn't filed a pleading.
Second, the state's actions to this point are the acts of a state commission, which are not subject to the rules of civil procedure because it is an administrative process, not a court process. So Rule 11 doesn't apply to the state's actions at all. Leaving that technical stuff aside.... Fact is, the Supreme Court's decision did not address the core issue of whether or not a baker could refuse to bake a cake that violated his religious beliefs. They ducked that core issue, and decided the case on the much narrower ground that there was bias at that particular Commission hearing.
So, Colorado just waited until someone else filed a new complaint. They then issued a new probable cause determination, and will schedule a hearing at some point. Nothing in the Supreme Court case precluded any of that.
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, and that case has to make it all the way up to the Supreme Court. Of course, it's possible that some case like that from another state is already winding it' way through the appellate process.