Christian Baker Again Under Fire for Refusing Transgender Cake Despite Supreme Court Win

[endicom]

PJ Media
Tyler O'Neil
Aug. 14, 2018

In June, the Supreme Court decided the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, issuing a powerful rebuke to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for its "religious hostility" toward Christian baker Jack Phillips. Phillips had refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, and the commission had compared his decision to religious arguments in favor of the Ku Klux Klan and Nazism.

Now, the commission is again going after Phillips for declining to create a custom cake — this time a cake celebrating transgenderism. On Tuesday night, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the Christian law firm that represented Phillips before the Supreme Court and helped him gain an important 7-2 victory, filed a federal lawsuit against the commission to forestall action against Phillips.

"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," ADF Senior Vice President of U.S. Legal Division Kristen Waggoner declared in a statement. “Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him—something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."

More... https://pjmedia.com/faith/christian-baker-again-under-fire-for-refusing-transgender-cake-despite-supreme-court-win/

[Free Vulcan]

This Time For Not Baking A Cake Celebrating Transgender Transition

On Tuesday, according to The Daily Caller, Christian baker Jack Phillips -- who was recently handed a victory at the Supreme Court after the Colorado Civil Rights Commission discriminated against him on the basis of religion by fining him for not baking a same-sex wedding cake -- filed a new lawsuit against the Civil Rights Commission. Why? Because the Civil Rights Commission has apparently issued a preliminary ruling penalizing him for not baking a gender transition celebration cake.

Yes, seriously.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/34528/breaking-colorado-civil-rights-commission-comes-ben-shapiro

[thackney]

The same transgender lawyer, Autumn Scardina, who is requesting the transgender transition cake, earlier tried to sue Masterpiece Cakeshop for refusing to bake a Satanist cakes. 

[Wingnut]

If the political Left should ever gain a fifth vote on the Supreme Court, it will not be long before states across the country – and perhaps a Democratic Congress – would crack down on individual religious businessowners in blatant violation of the First Amendment guarantees of freedom of association, speech, and religion. Jack Phillips isn’t out of danger yet.

Amen.

[Wingnut]

The same transgender lawyer, Autumn Scardina, who is requesting the transgender transition cake, earlier tried to sue Masterpiece Cakeshop for refusing to bake a Satanist cakes.

Yep, one depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo.

[Sanguine]

They're after him, aren't they?  Poor guy.  But, it looks like he's standing tough.

[mystery-ak]

Threads merged

[endicom]

They're after him, aren't they?  Poor guy.  But, it looks like he's standing tough.

I don't see how it can be legal to target someone this way. He's being 'stalked' or whatever would be the proper term.

[Bigun]

I don't see how it can be legal to target someone this way. He's being 'stalked' or whatever would be the proper term.

I agree!  There has to be a legal remedy and his lawyers need to find and pursue it to the max!

[Millee]

The leftist mob are not going to let this man alone.   

[Maj. Bill Martin]

No, there isn't any legal remedy for this.  Not really.  He may file what is called a declaratory judgment action in federal court, but that's not really a remedy as much as it is asking the federal courts to rule on this issue.  He also could file a case claiming that the state action in coming after him again itself is discriminatory, but I don't see that as winning.  Fact is, the Supreme Court botched it.

This was very predictable because (presumably) Anthony Kennedy refused to sign on to a more broad ruling in the last case.  The baker won the last case based on the reasoning that the Commission/process was biased, but that case did not say that he could refuse to bake the cake.  The Court ducked that issue.

So, going after this guy again, or against someone else, was pretty much inevitable.  The Commission this time will likely refrain from overt expressions of bias, so the next time the issue rises up on appeal, the core dispute of whether or not the baker can refuse to bake the cake will be presented more squarely.  Again, that's unless he files a declaratory judgment action and a federal court agrees to take the case.

The risk in doing that is that some federal court of appeals could hold that the declaratory judgment action is not proper, and so toss the case out down the road without addressing the merits again.

[endicom]

No, there isn't any legal remedy for this.  Not really.  He may file what is called a declaratory judgment action in federal court, but that's not really a remedy as much as it is asking the federal courts to rule on this issue.

This was very predictable because (presumably) Anthony Kennedy refused to sign on to a more broad ruling in the last case.  The baker won the last case based on the reasoning that the Commission/process was biased, but that case did not say that he could refuse to bake the cake.  The Court ducked that issue.

So, going after this guy again, or against someone else, was pretty much inevitable.  The Commission this time will likely refrain from overt expressions of bias, so the next time the issue rises up on appeal, the core dispute of whether or not the baker can refuse to bake the cake will be presented more squarely.

Thanks.

That leaves payback. Pay back in kind and twice as hard.

BTW, I'm not religious so I'm not in that sense taking sides.

[INVAR]

One cannot buy or sell unless one thinks and acts like the Beast.

We are witnessing how Revelation 13:17 will work.

[XenaLee]

Thanks.

That leaves payback. Pay back in kind and twice as hard.

BTW, I'm not religious so I'm not in that sense taking sides.

Payback..... how, exactly?

[SirLinksALot]

This is the fault of the SCOTUS itself.

After they made their decision in favor of the Christian Baker, I thought it was a Pyrrhic Victory as they only addressed an issue related to THAT PARTICULAR CASE but did not make it a BASIC First Amendment related decision applicable to all religious businessmen.

So, this was inevitable given that the Supreme Court declined to address this issue head-on the first time around. Other than in the concurrence by Gorsuch and Alito, the Court focused on the Commission's overt anti-religious bias during the state hearing, not on the core issue of whether the baker had the first amendment right to refuse service. If the SCOTUS did that, it would have been applicable to ALL religious businesses --- Bakers, Florist, Photographers, Lodge Owners, etc.

So, someone filing a new Complaint/charge with the State of Colorado, and this issue coming up yet again, was predictable. This should already be a warning to every Christian businessman out there. The strategy of the alt-lifestyle leftists is to sue you into bankruptcy if they can't get their way.

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.

The Supreme Court should settle this issue ONCE AND FOR ALL. NOW !!

[INVAR]

The Supreme Court should settle this issue ONCE AND FOR ALL. NOW !!

Not . Gonna. Happen.

Speech, religion and the right to keep and bear arms - are all subjects SCOTUS is never going to make definitive rulings on.

Not unless they seat 4 Ted Cruz/Alito -Originalist types on the bench and Thomas and Alito do not retire.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Not . Gonna. Happen.

Speech, religion and the right to keep and bear arms - are all subjects SCOTUS is never going to make definitive rulings on.

Not unless they seat 4 Ted Cruz/Alito -Originalist types on the bench and Thomas and Alito do not retire.

Nah.  Heller was a strong ruling.  There are always going to be some edges that are not defined perfectly, but it was a very good decision.

The problem in the baker case was Kennedy.  Most likely, there was a 4-4-1 split on the critical issue of principle, with Kennedy being the swing vote.  Rather than deciding the issue either way, he basically punted by writing a very case-specific opinion.

But Kennedy is now gone, and I'd be willing to bet that Kavanaugh won't duck the issue when it comes up again.

[XenaLee]

Nah.  Heller was a strong ruling.  There are always going to be some edges that are not defined perfectly, but it was a very good decision.

The problem in the baker case was Kennedy.  Most likely, there was a 4-4-1 split on the critical issue of principle, with Kennedy being the swing vote.  Rather than deciding the issue either way, he basically punted by writing a very case-specific opinion.

But Kennedy is now gone, and I'd be willing to bet that Kavanaugh won't duck the issue when it comes up again.

Hope springs re: that... but, I'd feel a lot better about this kind of future decisions if we had another Scalia-type justice appointed.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

Hope springs re: that... but, I'd feel a lot better about this kind of future decisions if we had another Scalia-type justice appointed.

Well...there just aren't all that many Scalia-types out there.  But Kavanaugh is a pretty reliable textualist.

[endicom]

Payback..... how, exactly?

In kind. Start suing them for not accommodating Christians, straights, whatever.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

In kind. Start suing them for not accommodating Christians, straights, whatever.

But suppose they do accommodate because they don't have any religious beliefs to be offended, or perhaps because they're willing to violate them to make a sale?  You can only sue if they refuse.

[XenaLee]

In kind. Start suing them for not accommodating Christians, straights, whatever.

Start suing who?  The bakers, photographers, business owners, etc.... that attempt to adhere to their religious beliefs?  Or the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that is targeting them for doing so?  I'm confused here.  Please splain.

I don't see how further victimizing the business owners would rectify the situation.... it would only make things more fubared and more unfair.   Right???

[txradioguy]

You would have thought that after getting their hands smacked once by the SCOTUS this Colorado Civil Rights Commission would have simply decided to not hear this case...since it's almost exactly the same charges that were rejected just a couple months ago.

Some people have to learn the hard way I guess.

[Hoodat]

Cakes have gender?

[Sanguine]

Cakes have gender?

Many, many of them.  And, they're all fluid.