Colorado Baker back in the News (1 Viewer)

[Optimus Prime]

Same baker that was sued for not making a gay wedding cake which went all the way to the Supreme Court
===================================================

The owner of a specialty cakes shop in Lakewood, Colo., who first made national headlines for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, was back in court on Monday.

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s owner Jack Phillips was sued by a gay couple in 2012 after citing religious beliefs as his reason for not making their wedding cake. In 2018 his case made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, when the justices granted him a partial victory.

On Monday, the Christian baker went on trial in another lawsuit, this time involving Denver-based attorney Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman who said that the baker didn’t sell her a cake because she was transgender.

Scardina attempted to order a cake on the same day in 2017 when the Supreme Court justices announced they would hear Phillips appeal on the same-sex wedding case. He refused, so she took matters to court.

Scardina initially filed a complaint with the state in 2018. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found probable cause that she had been discriminated against.

Phillips then sued the state for harassment in federal court..............

In her complaint Scardina claimed that Phillips refused to sell her a birthday cake “because she is transgender, despite repeatedly advertising that they would sell birthday cakes to the general public, including LGBT individuals.”

The cake she wanted to order was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition. But when she called the shop, she was told that they didn’t make cakes for “sex changes.”

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s website says that Phillips will “happily create custom cakes for anyone,” but he won’t “create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events that conflict with his religious beliefs.”

Philips has maintained that he won’t create cakes to celebrate events that he, as a Christian, doesn’t agree with.

On Monday, during a virtual trial, Phillips’ attorney Sean Gates argued that his refusal to bake the cake was simply about its message, and not about discriminating against Scardina.

“The message would be that he agrees that a gender transition is something to be celebrated,” Gates said, according to The Associated Press............

Colorado cake baker back in court over alleged anti-LGBTQ discrimination (msn.com)

 

[wardorican]

I'd like Chuck's take on this. I understand the artistic expression issue about not wanting to make an expressly gay marriage or gender change cake, but making a cake, with two colors, and also dictating what kind of event the cake can be used in, seems like a stretch. Public services don't necessarily get to dictate the end use. A store may not want you to put a lightbulb up your butt, but some people do it. So, can the store prevent the sale? lol.

What if they just wanted to buy a plain vanilla cake? I guess in that case, the person wouldn't get into 'what it's for'.

I mean, if it were me, I'd have just lied about the reason for the cake. It's for a gender reveal party, we want blue on the outside, and pink on the inside to throw everyone off.

So, I do wonder if there is a bit of pseudo entrapment here by the lawyer pushing what it was for, knowing it would trigger them.

 

[Optimus Prime]

there was a good discussion on the original case on the PDB - started by Superchuck actually

SCOTUS rules narrowly in favor of Colorado cake baker (gay marriage case) | New Orleans Saints - SaintsReport.com

Delete if it's not okay to post the link

 

[MT15]

I'd like Chuck's take on this. I understand the artistic expression issue about not wanting to make an expressly gay marriage or gender change cake, but making a cake, with two colors, and also dictating what kind of event the cake can be used in, seems like a stretch. Public services don't necessarily get to dictate the end use. A store may not want you to put a lightbulb up your butt, but some people do it. So, can the store prevent the sale? lol.

What if they just wanted to buy a plain vanilla cake? I guess in that case, the person wouldn't get into 'what it's for'.

I mean, if it were me, I'd have just lied about the reason for the cake. It's for a gender reveal party, we want blue on the outside, and pink on the inside to throw everyone off.

So, I do wonder if there is a bit of pseudo entrapment here by the lawyer pushing what it was for, knowing it would trigger them.

okay, so two things: I almost spit out my drink when I saw where your mind went with the light bulbs.

Second, you would need to know if the lawyer just went in and announced what the cake was for, or were they asked what the cake was for. If they were asked, I don’t see how telling the truth could be an entrapment. But if they just went in and told everyone, then while still not exactly entrapment, it’s pretty obvious they were trying to provoke the reaction they got.

 

[samiam5211]

She should go back and ask for the same cake and refuse to tell the baker what it is for even if he asks.

 

[Bigdaddysaints]

I would get a bunch of people to go in and buy different cakes, then when having a giant Transgender/gay party, tag the company on Facebook, Insta, Twitter, etc and say thanks for all the trans/gay cakes.. Get every person that supports them to hastag something about it and watch the company lose their minds..lol.

 

[wardorican]

okay, so two things: I almost spit out my drink when I saw where your mind went with the light bulbs.

Second, you would need to know if the lawyer just went in and announced what the cake was for, or were they asked what the cake was for. If they were asked, I don’t see how telling the truth could be an entrapment. But if they just went in and told everyone, then while still not exactly entrapment, it’s pretty obvious they were trying to provoke the reaction they got.

not in the classical sense of Entrapment. But I mean, a lawyer, potentially with an agenda, giving extra info just to see how they'd react, knowing they already had a big case in the news.

In one hand I can see it as a form of entrapment. In the other, I can see it as calling someone on their BS.

p.s. about the joke..haha, yeah. I was just trying to think of a normal every day item available to the public that could get misused and go against religious beliefs (or arguably reasonable beliefs..lol).

I was thinking of those ER shows where people go in for stupid reasons.

 

[wardorican]

She should go back and ask for the same cake and refuse to tell the baker what it is for even if he asks.

3-4 years too late. That cat is way out of the bag.

 

[DaveXA]

I don't get people sometimes. I've bought lots of cakes before. I've never once had to explain what the cake was for. Just go in, tell them how you want the cake designed and be done with it. It seems to me the only reason the baker knew was because the patron told him what it was for. If it were me, I would have just said it was a personal thing, get the cake and do what I do.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

okay, so two things: I almost spit out my drink when I saw where your mind went with the light bulbs.

Second, you would need to know if the lawyer just went in and announced what the cake was for, or were they asked what the cake was for. If they were asked, I don’t see how telling the truth could be an entrapment. But if they just went in and told everyone, then while still not exactly entrapment, it’s pretty obvious they were trying to provoke the reaction they got.

According to what Optimus posted, the lawyer said the cake was for a birthday. If this is accurate, nothing else should matter, unless the baker claims that birthdays are against his religion.

 

[DaveXA]

According to what Optimus posted, the lawyer said the cake was for a birthday. If this is accurate, nothing else should matter, unless the baker claims that birthdays are against his religion.

I don't know the details, but I have a hard time believing they just told him it was for a birthday. If that's all that was said, cake gets made and he's on to the next one. There has to be more to the story, I would think anyway.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don't know the details, but I have a hard time believing they just told him it was for a birthday. If that's all that was said, cake gets made and he's on to the next one. There has to be more to the story, I would think anyway.

I wouldn't be surprised. Even if the attorney ordered the cake while wearing a shirt that says "Trans and Proud" and opened the conversation by saying "I'm a transgender woman looking for a birthday cake", the baker has engaged in discriminatory practices. From what I am seeing (now that I have a bit of time to look at a few articles) is that the attorney says she ordered a birthday cake and the baker is claiming the cake is celebrating not her birthday, but her gender transition.

 

[DaveXA]

I wouldn't be surprised. Even if the attorney ordered the cake while wearing a shirt that says "Trans and Proud" and opened the conversation by saying "I'm a transgender woman looking for a birthday cake", the baker has engaged in discriminatory practices. From what I am seeing (now that I have a bit of time to look at a few articles) is that the attorney says she ordered a birthday cake and the baker is claiming the cake is celebrating not her birthday, but her gender transition.

How would he know that though?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

How would he know that though?

The baker? I don't know. Perhaps she said that she is a trans woman ordering a birthday cake that represents her own personal journey and he decided he wasn't going to make it, claiming that it's not really a birthday cake because it represents something more than a birthday to the woman.

I'm not saying this is what happened. I am only saying that one party claims birthday cake and the other claims gender transition celebration cake. Either one side is lying or the baker is conflating the two things.

 

[samiam5211]

The baker? I don't know. Perhaps she said that she is a trans woman ordering a birthday cake that represents her own personal journey and he decided he wasn't going to make it, claiming that it's not really a birthday cake because it represents something more than a birthday to the woman.

I'm not saying this is what happened. I am only saying that one party claims birthday cake and the other claims gender transition celebration cake. Either one side is lying or the baker is conflating the two things.

Maybe she is calling the day she transitioned her birthday.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Maybe she is calling the day she transitioned her birthday.

That's a thought I had as well. I'm curious to see how it all shakes out.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

She ordered the cake on the same day it was announced that the baker's previous case was going to the Supreme Court. I find it highly unlikely she did not tell the baker about the symbolism of the cake. It seems she was trying to make a point.

My opinion on this is the same as the gay wedding case -- the bakery specializes in custom cakes, not a commodity. So, I think someone has a right to refuse to make something custom that goes against their religious beliefs.

So, basically, if she told him that this cake was meant to symbolize her transition - and it seems likely that she did. Then I think he has a right to refuse service. If she did not tell him the symbolism, and he refused her service based on who she was, then he ought to be sued.

 

[samiam5211]

She ordered the cake on the same day it was announced that the baker's previous case was going to the Supreme Court. I find it highly unlikely she did not tell the baker about the symbolism of the cake. It seems she was trying to make a point.

My opinion on this is the same as the gay wedding case -- the bakery specializes in custom cakes, not a commodity. So, I think someone has a right to refuse to make something custom that goes against their religious beliefs.

So, basically, if she told him that this cake was meant to symbolize her transition - and it seems likely that she did. Then I think he has a right to refuse service. If she did not tell him the symbolism, and he refused her service based on who she was, then he ought to be sued.

I guess the question is does the baker have a right to demand the customer tell him what the cake will be used for.

Could he deny someone a cake just because they won’t tell him what it’s for? What if he only asks gay/trans people the question?