Baker fined $500 for refusing to make gender transition cake

[+OverSword]

Quote

 

A Denver court on Tuesday fined local bakery Masterpiece Cakeshop $500 after co-owner Jack Phillips refused to make a cake celebrating a transgender woman’s birthday and transition.

Autumn Scardina filed a lawsuit against Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2017, after the bakery refused to bake her a pink cake with blue frosting, symbolizing her gender transition.

Phillips testified that the bakery refused to bake the cake “based on the message they believed it would have conveyed - that a person can change genders and that a gender transition should be celebrated,” according to the ruling.

Phillips is the same baker who drew widespread attention as the subject of a 2012 lawsuit for refusing to make a cake for a gay couple’s wedding. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in 2018 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which previously said Phillips should not have refused to serve the couple, violated his First Amendment rights.

On Wednesday, judge Bruce Jones of the Denver District Court ordered the bakery to pay Scardina $500 for violating Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).

 

Link

Seems like this is activism and a waste of the courts time.  They had to have had a good idea of what his answer was going to be based on his refusal to make gay wedding cakes.  This is simply mean spirited targeting IMO.  I wonder what would happen if I were to go into this cake shop and ask for a cake in honor of satan's black mass?  He would refuse to make it, would he get a fine?

Edited June 16, 2021 by OverSword

[+Desertrat56]

7 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Link

Seems like this is activism and a waste of the courts time.  They had to have had a good idea of what his answer was going to be based on his refusal to make gay wedding cakes.  This is simply mean spirited targeting IMO.  I wonder what would happen if I were to go into this cake shop and ask for a cake in honor of satan's black mass?  He would refuse to make it, would he get a fine?

This is crazy.  The only way I could see it being an issue that a court should get involved is if the baker were being subsidized by the state or the feds.   If it is his private business then he has a right to refuse service.   If it were a life and death sitiuation maybe there could be a ruling but otherwise this is just bull*****, and the person who asked for that cake knowingly went in to that baker.  There is no way anyone in Denver would not know who that guy is.   It was obviously a trap, the judge should have seen that.

Edited June 16, 2021 by Desertrat56

[+OverSword]

2 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

This is crazy.  The only way I could see it being an issue that a court should get involved is if the baker were being subsidized by the state or the feds.   If it is his private business then he has a right to refuse service.   If it were a life and death sitiuation maybe there could be a ruling but otherwise this is just bull*****, and the person who asked for that cake knowingly went in to that baker.  There is no way anyone in Denver would not know who that guy is.   It was obviously a trap, the judge should have seen that.

Not only that but the case with the gay wedding cake was thrown out by a higher court so the judge in this case is obviously an activist, going against precedent.  

[+Desertrat56]

2 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Not only that but the case with the gay wedding cake was thrown out by a higher court so the judge in this case is obviously an activist, going against precedent.  

So the baker should be able to take it to a higher court but can he afford the 500.00 plus court costs plus what ever it takes to get to a higher court?   It is a purposeful trap made so that he gets punished financially no matter what.   It seems like boycotting by those silly twits would have been sufficient.  There is probably another bakery down the street that would love their business.   We live in a mad, mad, mad world.

[+OverSword]

3 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

So the baker should be able to take it to a higher court but can he afford the 500.00 plus court costs plus what ever it takes to get to a higher court?   It is a purposeful trap made so that he gets punished financially no matter what.   It seems like boycotting by those silly twits would have been sufficient.  There is probably another bakery down the street that would love their business.   We live in a mad, mad, mad world.

He's being backed by a Christian legal defense fund of some type.  It's in the article.

[+Desertrat56]

Just now, OverSword said:

He's being backed by a Christian legal defense fund of some type.  It's in the article.

Still, the law suit was a trap and it will backfire when it gets to a higher court.   

[zep73]

Why do I feel this is an attack on liberalism?

The baker's right to refuse a customer's wish is liberalism!

His reasons might be conservative and distasteful, but that's a whole other deal.

Edited June 17, 2021 by zep73

[Grim Reaper 6]

56 minutes ago, OverSword said:

Link

Seems like this is activism and a waste of the courts time.  They had to have had a good idea of what his answer was going to be based on his refusal to make gay wedding cakes.  This is simply mean spirited targeting IMO.  I wonder what would happen if I were to go into this cake shop and ask for a cake in honor of satan's black mass?  He would refuse to make it, would he get a fine?

Its really sad that this business is being targeted, hopefully it will turn out well for the owner.

[acute]

57 minutes ago, Desertrat56 said:

If it is his private business then he has a right to refuse service.

Not the case in all States.

[Nosy.Matters]

30 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

 . . hopefully it will turn out well for the owner.

Exactly.

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

54 minutes ago, zep73 said:

Why do I feel this is an attack on liberalism?

The baker's right to refuse a customer's wish is liberalism!

His reasons might be conservative and distasteful, but that's a whole other deal.

Exactly, I’m a supporter of LBGTQIA+ rights, but also the rights of a business to say “nope, don’t want your business” for whatever damn reason. 

[+OverSword]

2 hours ago, zep73 said:

Why do I feel this is an attack on liberalism?

The baker's right to refuse a customer's wish is liberalism!

His reasons might be conservative and distasteful, but that's a whole other deal.

In my mind decorating cakes is art. I have a good friend that is an artist and he declines requests for custom paintings all the time if it’s not his style or the idea doesn’t move him.

[+and-then]

2 hours ago, OverSword said:

I wonder what would happen if I were to go into this cake shop and ask for a cake in honor of satan's black mass?  He would refuse to make it, would he get a fine?

It seems this precedent would cause that to happen.  The same could be true if a pedophile wanted a cake to celebrate the abuse of kids.

[+OverSword]

1 hour ago, acute said:

Not the case in all States.

Depends on the reason given. If I had convictions like this guy I would simply say, we’re booked solid and can’t accept your request. Here is the name of a bakery that I’m sure can accommodate you 

[+joc]

4 hours ago, OverSword said:

Link

Seems like this is activism and a waste of the courts time.  They had to have had a good idea of what his answer was going to be based on his refusal to make gay wedding cakes.  This is simply mean spirited targeting IMO.  I wonder what would happen if I were to go into this cake shop and ask for a cake in honor of satan's black mass?  He would refuse to make it, would he get a fine?

The state has no authority in such matters.  It is blatant activism...but we are talking about the Communist regime of Colorado ...so...ya know

[acidhead]

Most cakes, bought for any event, contain an enormous amount of sugar.

Best to avoid no matter the circumstance. 

[Autochthon1990]

How many times do we need to teach people this lesson? Discriminating will not be accepted, race, sexual orientation, gender, none of it is okay, and if you try to pull this ****, you should be fined into oblivion. 

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

31 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

How many times do we need to teach people this lesson? Discriminating will not be accepted, race, sexual orientation, gender, none of it is okay, and if you try to pull this ****, you should be fined into oblivion. 

What if someone wants you to bake a great big swastika cake to celebrate Adolf Hitler’s birthday? Would you still force them to bake that cake?

[RAyMO]

I support any law that prohibits discrimination to provide a service based on any form of discrimination. 

therefore if you provide hotel rooms, car washes, promotional printing or baking services you have no right to discriminate or to refuse to provide said service based on gender, religion, nationality, race etc of the customer. 

To an extent that is clear cut. Particularly for services like hotel rooms and car washes. 

However services like promotional printing and indeed bakery become more nuanced because the items provided can be customised to the customer demand. 

Lets say a printer is a Christian family run owned business, should that printer be expected to print literature calling for the eradication of the Christian faith - I don't think so.   Or if a printer is pro abortion, attends rallies etc to support the cause, should he / she be expected to produce anti abortion literature, again I don't think so. 

so, I am thinking out loud here, discrimination on the provision of a service should be against the law, however, perhaps customisation of a service should allow some sort of 'conscientious objection' clause. 

don't know just a thought.  

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2021 by RAyMO

[Sir Wearer of Hats]

37 minutes ago, RAyMO said:

I support any law that prohibits discrimination to provide a service based on any form of discrimination. 

therefore if you provide hotel rooms, car washes, promotional printing or baking services you have no right to discriminate or to refuse to provide said service based on gender, religion, nationality, race etc of the customer. 

To an extent that is clear cut. Particularly for services like hotel rooms and car washes. 

However services like promotional printing and indeed bakery become more nuanced because the items provided can be customised to the customer demand. 

Lets say a printer is a Christian family run owned business, should that printer be expected to print literature calling for the eradication of the Christian faith - I don't think so.   Or if a printer is pro abortion, attends rallies etc to support the cause, should he / she be expected to produce anti abortion literature, again I don't think so. 

so, I am thinking out loud here, discrimination on the provision of a service should be against the law, however, perhaps customisation of a service should allow some sort of 'conscientious objection' clause. 

don't know just a thought.  

I think it’s even simpler - any business should have the right to not take anyone’s business for any reason, BUT be aware that given this is the 21st century there will be a pushback when the rejected complains. If they think they can weather the loss of business, let them reject as they please. 

[+and-then]

This is a perfect example of activism in the pursuit of punishing those who disagree.  Bake the cake and do a monumentally crappy job of it.  THEN publicize the transaction and the identity of the activist.  

Slowly but surely, a parallel economy will grow out of this kind of nonsense.  It can't happen soon enough.  

[Autochthon1990]

2 hours ago, Sir Wearer of Hats said:

What if someone wants you to bake a great big swastika cake to celebrate Adolf Hitler’s birthday? Would you still force them to bake that cake?

Nazi's haven't historically been oppressed in this country, so no. 

 

****e, why is it every time someone starts trumpeting 'religious freedom', it's never anything to do with 'I have the right to give these homeless people shelter and supplies' or 'we have a right to care for these sick and downtrodden people like Jesus would have', it's /always/ 'I have a right to be a titanic ******* to these people because I can julienne my holy text to the point if you squint and look sideways it says I can'?

[Buzz_Light_Year]

2 hours ago, Autochthon1990 said:

How many times do we need to teach people this lesson?

When the left realizes that it is a two way street.

How many black only organizations are there?

Black only housing?

Neo-segregation on college campuses? i.e. Black only graduations and more.

Jewish only organizations?

Christian only organizations?

The list is virtually endless and the left concentrates on a lonely baker who from religious convictions refuses to bake a cake.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You are all for anti-discrimination only when it fits a certain subset and not the whole.

 

[Autochthon1990]

6 minutes ago, Buzz_Light_Year said:

When the left realizes that it is a two way street.

How many black only organizations are there?

Black only housing?

Neo-segregation on college campuses? i.e. Black only graduations and more.

Jewish only organizations?

Christian only organizations?

The list is virtually endless and the left concentrates on a lonely baker who from religious convictions refuses to bake a cake.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

You are all for anti-discrimination only when it fits a certain subset and not the whole.

 

Like I said, you guys only ever whine about that when it prevents you from being an ******* to disadvantaged people. Stop it, we're not buying this anymore, it's not a good faith argument, it's just a petty excuse to treat people you think are inferior like hogshite. 

 

[Buzz_Light_Year]

3 minutes ago, Autochthon1990 said:

Stop it, we're not buying this anymore

No you're not buying it, you're selling it.