Colorado After Christian Baker - Again!

[seer]

These wicked leftists won't stop until they control us all!

Jack has spent six years battling the state for simply declining to express a message that conflicts with his religious beliefs. Now, right after the Supreme Court has given him the justice he deserves, the state of Colorado has decided to pursue a second claim against Jack. This one is even more baseless than the first.

In June of 2017, the very day that the Supreme Court decided to hear Masterpiece, a local attorney asked Jack to design a custom pink-and-blue cake to celebrate his gender transition, a request that Jack politely declined. Of course, Jack serves everyone. He just cannot express all messages, especially those that conflict with his Christian beliefs. Jack has never created a cake expressing this message for anyone.

Still, Colorado has decided to use this case to target Jack a second time.

https://www.adflegal.org/detailspage...phillips-again

[Sparko]

At this point the case should be dismissed because it is obvious he is just being targeted, which in itself is discrimination.

[seer]

At this point the case should be dismissed because it is obvious he is just being targeted, which in itself is discrimination.

Right, a transgender lawyer just happened to walk into his bakery...

[Sparko]

OK so the story at the link is not quite correct.

Apparently the attorney complained about being refused the cake, and the state mandated mediation. So Jack is suing the STATE for them discriminating against him again, claiming they are targeting him.

---
The Colorado baker who won a Supreme Court case over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple is suing state officials, alleging religious discrimination over his refusal to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.

Attorneys for Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., said Wednesday that the state is "continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs."

The case involves an incident from June 2017, when lawyer Autumn Scardina said she asked for a cake with a pink interior and blue exterior to celebrate the anniversary of transitioning from male to female. "The woman on the phone told me they do not make cakes celebrating gender changes," Scardina wrote in a complaint to Colorado's Division of Civil Rights.

"That's a cake I can't create for anybody," Phillips told Colorado Public Radio.

On June 28 of this year, Colorado regulators said there was "sufficient evidence" to support Scardina's claim of discrimination based on her transgender status and ordered the two sides to "compulsory mediation."

"I know the Bible says that God created male and female and that we don't get to choose that, and we don't get to change that," Phillips told CPR. "And I don't feel like the government has a right to compel me to participate in creating a cake that promotes that message."

Phillips is asking the court for permanent injunctions against the state from enforcing Colorado anti-discrimination laws against him as well as $100,000 in punitive damages.

https://www.npr.org/2018/08/16/63914...ansgender-woma

[seer]

OK so the story at the link is not quite correct.

Why was the story in the link wrong? I found this interesting...

On top of that, the state is contradicting the arguments it made the first time around. A brief Colorado sent to the Supreme Court argued that Jack is “free to decline to sell cakes with ‘pro-gay’ designs.” But what is this recently requested cake but a custom cake with a “pro-transgender” design? If Colorado were following what it told the Supreme Court, it would have dismissed this case against Jack.

[Sparko]

Why was the story in the link wrong? I found this interesting...

On top of that, the state is contradicting the arguments it made the first time around. A brief Colorado sent to the Supreme Court argued that Jack is “free to decline to sell cakes with ‘pro-gay’ designs.” But what is this recently requested cake but a custom cake with a “pro-transgender” design? If Colorado were following what it told the Supreme Court, it would have dismissed this case against Jack.

yeah I saw that. They tanked their own case.

But the initial story is misleading, it makes it sound like Jack is on the defensive, being sued by the state again. In fact, the state only told him and the transgender attorney to go to mediation (which is a way of coming to an agreement without a lawsuit) and Jack is the one who has started a lawsuit against the state. The page additionally is asking for money to help Jack, but it makes it look like he needs money to DEFEND himself, when in fact he needs the money to pursue his lawsuit that HE initiated.

Not that I blame him for suing the state for harassing him, but the way the initial link reads, he is being sued instead of him suing them.

[Mountain Man]

This looks like a blatant attempt to use frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt an innocent victim.

[seer]

This looks like a blatant attempt to use frivolous lawsuits to bankrupt an innocent victim.

But he is not innocent, he is white, Christian, straight and probably owns a firearm! Can't get much more guilty than that!

[kiwimac]

Bankrupt the bigoted so and so.

[Tassman]

But he is not innocent, he is white, Christian, straight and probably owns a firearm! Can't get much more guilty than that!

You omitted "homophobic bigot".

Bankrupt the bigoted so and so.

I like your style.

[Leonhard]

There's a chance he wins again, and this time the verdict will cement even more strongly religious freedom.

As we've been saying for a long time this has nothing to do with homosexuals seeking justice, its everything to do with some minority of the LGBTQ community who wants to punish Christians for not celebrating them.

[Tassman]

There's a chance he wins again, and this time the verdict will cement even more strongly religious freedom.

Unlikely, because this was a "one-off" ruling...he only "won" on a technically, i.e. the Supreme Court's verdict focused specifically on Mr Phillips' case. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that while Colorado law "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services... the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. In this case, it was ruled that the commission had shown "clear hostility" against him and was inappropriate for a commission charged with "fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law - a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation".

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162

As we've been saying for a long time this has nothing to do with homosexuals seeking justice,

No, it’s about homosexuals seeking justice.

its everything to do with some minority of the LGBTQ community who wants to punish Christians for not celebrating them.

Maybe in some instances gays are setting out to “get them” but this is not what it is all about as a rule...except for some religious people playing the persecution card.

[Leonhard]

No, it’s about homosexuals seeking justice.

This has nothing to do with homosexuals seeking justice, its everything to do with a small minority of the LGBTQ community who wants to punish Christians for not celebrating them.

Maybe in some instances gays are setting out to “get them”

All evidence suggest that this Colorado baker was targeted people definitely out to get him. The trans-activist had been sending him all sorts of religiously offensive cakes to bake, satanist depictions etc. Its completely transparent in this case, like with most of them.

[Sparko]

Bankrupt the bigoted so and so.

He is the one doing the suing here.

[Tassman]

This has nothing to do with homosexuals seeking justice, its everything to do with a small minority of the LGBTQ community who wants to punish Christians for not celebrating them.

I don’t think that homosexuals are demanding that people “celebrate” them. Generally it’s about homosexuals seeking equal rights under the law, i.e. the “justice”, to which they are entitled.

All evidence suggest that this Colorado baker was targeted people definitely out to get him. The trans-activist had been sending him all sorts of religiously offensive cakes to bake, satanist depictions etc. Its completely transparent in this case, like with most of them.

This may be the case in this particular instance and why the Supreme Court ruled as it did in this one-off ruling. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that while Colorado law "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services”... “the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion”. In this case, it was ruled that the commission had shown "clear hostility" against the Colorado cake maker and his religious beliefs.