Posted on 03/05/2021 7:54:04 AM PST by SeekAndFind
Nine years ago, a gay couple went into Masterpiece Cakeshop and asked baker Jack Phillips to craft a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Phillips refused, based on his Christian conviction that marriage is between one man and one woman, but he offered to sell the men anything else in the shop. They reported him to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, sparking a six-year legal battle up to the Supreme Court. Shortly after the Supreme Court found in favor of Phillips, a transgender lawyer targeted the Christian baker, beginning the battle all over again.
On Thursday, the Denver County district court granted Phillips a partial victory, striking down one of the legal claims the transgender lawyer, Autumn Scardina, brought against him. Yet the court refused to drop Scardina’s other claim in the lawsuit, leading to protracted litigation, once again.
“The decision by the court to dismiss one of the claims against Jack Phillips is the first step towards final justice,” Kristen Waggoner, general counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the firm representing Phillips, said in a statement on Thursday.
“Jack has been threatened with financial ruin simply because he makes decisions about which messages to create and celebrate—decisions that every other artist in Colorado is free to make. Tolerance for different opinions is essential. We look forward to defending Jack—and ultimately prevailing—on the remaining claim,” Waggoner added.
According to ADF, Scardina first approached Masterpiece Cakeshop on June 26, 2017, the very day the Supreme Court agreed to hear Phillips’ case. Scardina, a biological male who identifies as a female, requested cake art celebrating his gender transition. The shop declined the request, since creating such a cake would violate Phillips’ religious beliefs about gender.
(Excerpt) Read more at pjmedia.com ...
Few people are more intolerant than “tolerant” liberals.
There should be laws that apply corporal punishment to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and other traitorous leftist that assault the civil rights of Americans.
At some point the people filing these frivolous actions will begin disappearing along with their scum bag lawyers.
That will be a good day.
L
These cases should be thrown out immediately and the parties organizing and making them should be billed for the costs and damages.
Illustrates the difference between Conservatives and Liberals. Conservatives, faced with rejection, will seek out another source and never again use the original business that rejected them. Liberals will engage in a never-ending battle to destroy anyone or anything that rejects them.
It’s demonic driven. When they meet or see a Christian, they have to eliminate the Christian.
I am of the opinion that 1st amendment arguments which only rely on religion are ultimately going to fail in an ever increasing secular society. I belive that we should also add freedom of assembly to the arguments.
The freedom to do something means that there is also the freedom to NOT do something. That is what creates choice. Thus the freedom to assmble (for the purpose of business) also means the freedom to NOT assemble and NOT do business.
IOW, a private business should have the right to refuse service to anyone.
As has been suggested before, he could do the cake with depiction of the gates of Hell and appropriate verses from Scripture.
Better tell them to put that mask back on...nine years with no mask, we’ll all die of the coof!
They didn’t go into a muzzy bakery and ask for a same-sex wedding cake. Guess they didn’t want to leave the bakery with their head in a separate box.
Or be thrown off a tall building.
Because they have nothing else to do - no children to raise. So they use their infinite time and money to do what they have been told is just as laudable as raising children: destroying Christianity.
What a F'd up world we now live in.
I wonder if a “malicious compliance” would be a useful alternative.
In this case, produce the cake but construct it in such a hideous manner that its appearance and taste conveyed how much the baker disagreed with the customer’s message. Generally, when an unsatisfactory product is delivered, the customer has the right to a refund if the original cannot (or will not) be corrected. If the customer has not yet paid, that is what they are due: nothing (the baker absorbing the cost of the lost time (wages) and materials).
Alternatively, create a offensive subject custom cake order form, indicating that a third party, independent fabricator will perform the actual work, that the deposit and balance are nonrefundable, that a minimum production time of 50 years is required, and that, due to the offensive subject, customer satisfaction is not guaranteed. Also include a table specifying an increasingly large deposit (in increments of... say, $10,000.00) as the number of offensive elements increases.
If the offensive subject custom cake requires a deposit of $100,000.00 and satisfaction is not guaranteed, and the product might not be delivered until the later half of the century, maybe the customer will choose to take their trade elsewhere.
Or buy some cookies instead.
Wouldn’t work unless he applied those conditions on every order.
There need to be sanctions against the people that keep doing this.
Which is what Facebook, Twitter, Amazon etc. do and can do, because ideological belief is not protected like as race etc. is, and while i believe a owner should be able to refuse to sell a can of paint to known Antifa members engaging in a riot, and Uber drivers to deny service to person known to be going to get an abortion, the can of worms that this opens is one in which Muslim taxi drivers could refuse to accept a Christian wanting to go to church.
But the Jack Phillips case was a slam dunk in his favor, since what He did was to refuse to complicit in the celebration of an immoral and illegal wedding, which was not only contrary to the word of God but at the time was also contrary to the CO constitution. Yet SCOTUS basically just said he was not treated fairly. The problem is that SCOTUS is the entity that basically criminalized dissent from recognizing homosexual marriage.
If you are referring to the offensive subject special order form, they would have to work with lawyers to ensure the procedures where bullet-proof legally speaking.
Ordering a cake would probably require each customer be stepped through a multi form screening; standard cake or custom cake; noncontroversial or controversial subject. Every cake-ordering customer would be subject to the screening but only the provocateurs (and/or their fellow travellers) will incur the special rates.
Probably have to incorporate the policy and screening criteria(s) into their website to satisfy public notification requirements.
Is he counter suing?
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.