Judge rules against Christian baker Jack Phillips in transgender 'birthday' cake case
“A judge has ruled that Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips violated state anti-discrimination law by refusing to bake a pink-and-blue transgender birthday cake.” - C. Post
- 6 views
Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that previous actions against Phillips violated his 1st Amendment rights, this judge apparently thinks that the precedent does not apply. Maybe this is just my judgmental side, but part of me hopes this judge gets (legally speaking) slapped into next week and de-benched. What he’s doing, really, is to further enable the “lawfare” of the woke left against Phillips even though the highest court in the land has said “knock it off.”
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
This time its a simple cake, not an elaborate one requiring his artistic talents. They went to him on purpose, had him make a cake, then told him it was for transgender. He was set up. But you can’t refuse to sell simple cakes.
Mark, here’s David Limbaugh’s commentary on the matter. More or less, the judge completely refused to look at the string of emails between the plaintiff and defendant that made the message in the cake (blue on the outside, pink inside—appears male but “is really” female inside) clear.
It’s not “just a cake”. It’s a clear example of using the courts to harass Philipps, one that was initiated after Philipps had beaten the state regulatory board already for the same refusal to “bake the message into the cake.” Again, “Judge” Bruce Jones should be removed from the bench and disbarred for this little stunt.
Aspiring to be a stick in the mud.
I think the baker may loose this one. It is going to come down to whether the cake in and of itself was a violation of his religious freedom. Could someone who is not a transgender come in and order a Blue cake with pink creme frosting on the inside? I would argue that the baker would probably not have a problem with that, Therefore can they refuse service only once the individual revealed who they are? This is very different from a wedding cake.
[dgszweda]I think the baker may loose this one. It is going to come down to whether the cake in and of itself was a violation of his religious freedom. Could someone who is not a transgender come in and order a Blue cake with pink creme frosting on the inside? I would argue that the baker would probably not have a problem with that, Therefore can they refuse service only once the individual revealed who they are? This is very different from a wedding cake.
yep
You go to the store to buy a premade cake. You say this cake is to celebrate your church’s anniversary. The owner says they don’t like Christianity and won’t sell. Is that legal?
[Mark_Smith]You go to the store to buy a premade cake. You say this cake is to celebrate your church’s anniversary. The owner says they don’t like Christianity and won’t sell. Is that legal?
You go to a Muslim baker and ask him to design a cake with a young man’s face on the top.
While he’s taking notes, you tell him the man is Muhammad.
He tells you to leave.
The owner says they don’t like Christianity and won’t sell. Is that legal?
Of course it is, but that’s a bit different because it is premade. This was a situation in which Person A asked Person B to say something for Person A. Person A should not be compelled to say something he doesn’t want to say. That is a bedrock principle of freedom.
I would argue that the baker would probably not have a problem with that, Therefore can they refuse service only once the individual revealed who they are?
It wasn’t about who they are but what they wanted the baker to say with his cake. According to the article, “the cake was rejected after Scardina disclosed the meaning behind the cake’s custom design.” So it wasn’t about who they were. He was willing to serve them. However, once the customer told Philips what he wanted Philips to say, Philips was unwilling to say that. And he, like every other business person, has the right to do that. This should be an easy decision by the courts, particularly given the past case and given the recent adoption case which was 9-0 on these very ideas—that other people cannot coerce the religious beliefs and the expressions of other people.
This should be uncontroversial. You can’t force someone to say something they don’t want to say.
[Andrew K]You go to a Muslim baker and ask him to design a cake with a young man’s face on the top.
While he’s taking notes, you tell him the man is Muhammad.
He tells you to leave.
Ahh… see ,you asked that baker to be an artist. In the case at hand we have a plain pink cake with blue frosting. No art.
A cake with some frosting on it is not artistic talent being used for a purpose you don’t support. Its simple commerce.
[Mark_Smith]Ahh… see ,you asked that baker to be an artist. In the case at hand we have a plain pink cake with blue frosting. No art.
Definitions of art are sticky and, in this case, irrelevant. The commonality is that in both situations, a message is being communicated through the product which the creator found offensive. There was no problem with the production until the creator was informed what his work was to represent.
Let me just add, even if you disagree with Jack, needling his convictions constantly for a perfect consistency in his practice and theory of cake-baking is at once something none of us could probably stand up to as well as, frankly, sick.
I have no doubt of he had agreed to make this cake, they would have tried something else.
Again,
I don’t think this will pass the muster test. He was not leveraging his artistic skills to create a message. The individuals requested a standard cake with standard features. None of which, in and of themselves, convey a message. They indicated that they were willing to make the cake. Only after they revealed why they chose the colors did they refuse. I don’t see how they can offer a standard cake, choose to bake the cake for that individual, but then back out when they find out what the cake will be used for at some later date off their premise.
Another area that they will get hung up legally is whether they request from each and every individual how cakes will be used at some later date and apply a consistent standard to the response. If not, than it points to further discrimination.
[Andrew K]You go to a Muslim baker and ask him to design a cake with a young man’s face on the top.
While he’s taking notes, you tell him the man is Muhammad.
He tells you to leave.
Not even close. Muhammad is offensive to the cake maker and placing the image in and of itself on the cake is offensive. The baker was not offended in making the cake. Was not offended in the colors chosen, or even who was requesting the cake. The only offense is after the cake was purchased, how the individual was going to use the cake.
[dgszweda]Not even close. Muhammad is offensive to the cake maker and placing the image in and of itself on the cake is offensive. The baker was not offended in making the cake. Was not offended in the colors chosen, or even who was requesting the cake. The only offense is after the cake was purchased, how the individual was going to use the cake.
Nobody knows what Mohammed looked like.
My point was, the baker doesn’t realize it’s Mohammed until he’s told. It’s just a generic young man to him at first. It’s the meaning of the image, not the image itself, which offends him.
Upon being told, he would interpret it as intentionally mocking his faith and provoking him. And he’d be right.
You’re a butcher. And a deacon at a Baptist church that teaches against drinking alcohol. A guy comes in and asks for a side of beef because he is going to have a blowout party with tons of beer and liquor. Can you not sell the beef to him because you don’t like how he’ll use it? This is pure lunacy.
Discussion