Colorado baker loses appeal over refusal to make gender transition cake

[DieChecker]

6 hours ago, HerNibs said:

The baker refused to make a cake based on WHAT THE CUSTOMER STATED rather than the substance of what the cake looked like. Person goes into bakery, asks for a white cake with white frosting.  Baker refuses to make cake based on something the customer says.

This though is too vague. If the customer came in calling the owner racial epitaphs, or threatening bodily harm, then 100% the owner can refuse to make a cake. So it does depend on WHAT the customer said.

This customer, rather then ordering the cake and being happy in it's promised delivery. Chose to tell the owner, whom they knew would be angry, something the owner has stated he was very much against, due to religious reasons. Customer did NOT have tell the owner the purpose to receive the cake. Customer did so to purposefully trigger the owner, and start a lawsuit. That they wanted 100000 dollars as damages.

If the customer had asked for specific writing on the cake that was offensive to the owner, I could see that being a reason to refuse also.

I'd tend to agree with the current judgment though. The owner did not have a good enough reason to refuse to make the cake. So he was fined $500. And I agree with the judge that the defendant should get nothing. 

Edited February 3 by DieChecker

[DieChecker]

Found the actual Federal case decision.

https://adflegal.org/sites/default/files/2023-01/Scardina-v-Masterpiece-Cakeshop-2023-01-26-CO-Court-of-Appeals-Opinion.pdf

The State appeals case decision.

https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/MasterpieceScardinaAppealsCourtDecision.pdf

Apparently the CADA laws used in the case do not allow for "damages" and thus when the case was settled, the defendant had to file another lawsuit to seek damages.

Looks like already submitted to the SCotUS.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-476/226880/20220602102911906_FRC Final Draft.pdf

Quote

Masterpiece 2
Days after his Supreme Court victory, Jack was charged again by the same state agency, this time alleging transgender discrimination. Autumn Scardina asked Jack, on the day this Court granted cert in Masterpiece 1, to create a custom gender-transition celebration cake.28 After Jack’s win in Masterpiece 1, Scardina had called the Cakeshop again, asking for a custom cake in the shape of the Satan smoking marijuana. Scardina’s cake requests are harassment and not genuine service requests. Unbelievably, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission treated Scardina’s complaints as genuine. When Jack sued the agency in federal court for religious harassment, the agency backed down and dismissed its complaint.29

Quote

Masterpiece 3
Scardina did not back down however, even when the Commission dismissed the complaint. Scardina then filed a lawsuit in state court over the same custom cake requests Masterpiece declined, a decision that was not because of the person who requested it. Phillips would not create cakes expressing the requested message no matter who asked for it. On June 15, 2021, the court issued a ruling against Jack, but on August 2, 2021, Jack appealed the trial court ruling to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The case is still pending. According to Jack’s lawyer, “[Phillips] once had ten employees and now it’s down to four. He has lost a big part of his business, in addition to the severe emotional toll” imposed by litigation.30

Also lists other cases that might apply

• Wisconsin—Amy Lynn Photography Studio v. City of Madison
• New Mexico—Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock
• Idaho - Knapp v. Coeur D’Alene (Wedding Chapel and Officiants)
• Oregon - Sweet Cakes by Melissa (Cake Designer) 
• California - Tastries Bakery (Cake Design)
• Bibliotechnical Athenaeum v. Nat’l Lawyers Guild, Inc., Case No. 653668/16, 2018 WL 1172597 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. Mar. 06, 2018)
• Virginia - Updegrove v. Herring (photographer)

Quote

CONCLUSION
Until this Court settles the question, lower courts will continue to erroneously treat sexual autonomy as somehow more protected than religious autonomy or associational autonomy in the public square. Obergefell promised that sexual autonomy might be joining the list of protected rights, but it was not a “new and improved autonomy.” Yet Obergefell has led to uncertainty on how to rule and disagree about what the law requires, so creative professionals are uncertain on how to act. Clarity from this Court is critical to stopping the chill. For these reasons, and those specified in Petitioners’ brief, your amicus prays this Court to resolve these issues in favor of free speech and religious liberty.