Masterpiece Cakeshop Loses Appeal Over Gender Transition Cake

Jack Phillip, the Colorado baker who brought the challenge in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission has again lost an appeal in Colorado state court. After the Supreme Court effectively punted on the issue of his free speech and free exercise challenges to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”), which protects against the denial of service in a place of public accommodation based on one’s identity. After the 2018 decision, Phillip faced additional demands including the creation of a gender transitioning cake. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled on Thursday that the refusal to make the cake requested by Autumn Scardina did not constitute free speech.

I have a forthcoming law review article on free speech protections for the speech involved in this and similar cases around the country: “The Unfinished Masterpiece: Speech Compulsion and the Evolving Jurisprudence over Religious Speech” (forthcoming 2023).

Many years ago, I wrote an academic piece on how anti-discrimination laws would inevitably collide with free-speech and free-exercise rights. Those conflicts continued to mount across the country. In 2018, the court was thought to be ready to clarify the applicable standards in the case of a religious cake shop owner who refused to make cakes for same-sex couples. The court ultimately punted in Masterpiece Cakeshop, leaving uncertainty over the constitutional limitations on cities and states under anti-discrimination law.

Smith’s case has long been a focus for some of us. I have written in favor of taking a free-speech approach to these cases rather than treating them as conflicts under the Constitution’s religion clauses. For that reason, one aspect of this grant of review was immediately notable. The court agreed to consider only one question: “Whether applying a public-accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

For Phillips, he has spent over a decade in state and federal courts. In the latest decision, the appellate court found that the creation of the cake can be “inherently expressive and therefore entitled to First Amendment protection.” However, the court still denied free speech protections by dismissing the notion that this particular cake was expressive:

“We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to 39 an observer would not be attributed to the baker. Thus, CADA does not compel Masterpiece and Phillips to speak through the creation and sale of such a cake to Scardina.”

The court used the same rationale of the cakes design to deny Phillips religious claims:

“We also reject Masterpiece and Phillips’ argument that the statute punishes them for exercising their religious beliefs because CADA is “applie[d] through the Commission’s purported use of an ‘offensiveness rule.’” For the reasons previously articulated, even if we were to assume such a standard exists, the trial court’s ruling in this case was not predicated on the perceived “offensiveness” of the message, but rather on the fact that the pink and blue cake expressed no message, whether secular or religious.”

Fortunately, 303 Creative has the makings of a major free speech victory.  The case involves a challenge of a web designer who was not only told that she must prepare websites for same-sex marriages despite her religious objections but that she cannot post a statement on her own website on her views of same-sex marriage. For free speech advocates, it is a nightmarish combination of compelled speech and censored speech.

With this denial of his constitutional rights, Phillips moves closer to a new appeal to the Supreme Court, which left him to years of additional litigation by effectively punting his case in 2018.

Here is the decision: Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc., No. 2023COA8 (Colo. App. Ct. Jan. 26, 2023),

194 thoughts on “Masterpiece Cakeshop Loses Appeal Over Gender Transition Cake”

  1. Jonathan Turley should write a piece titled:

    Would King James (edited the King James Version of the Bible) likely have supported “equal marriage rights” if he were alive today? There is actually strong evidence, that he likely would have.

    According to Thomas Fowler (James’ royal spy that vetted potential spouses) and others who knew him from childhood. Fowler concluded that King James “preferred men over women” when he married 14 year old Anne of Denmark.

    Apparently the marriage was primarily for political and financial motives. Although they never divorced, King James edited his version of the Bible to make divorce easier to do and when it was appropriate.

    Although inconclusive (as much of royal history is), it appears King James likely would have supported equal marriage rights since most historians agree James preferred men over women.

    The vast majority of Christian’s today support the King James Version of the Bible, so this seems like a great topic for deeper investigation. Maybe King James was Pro-LGBT rights?

  2. Jonathan: Well, it’s Sunday and for some of us just another day of responsible blogging. No rest for the weary. So what was noteworthy this week in the news you chose to ignore?

    Well, for starters John Durham, the special counsel Bill Barr appointed to find a conspiracy by the Clinton campaign to discredit Trump, is still hard at work on his final obituary, I mean “report”. At the slow pace Durham works it will probably take another 2-3 years to complete! There is some interesting reporting from the NY Times this week about Durham’s investigation that has just come to light. In 2019 Durham and Barr traveled to Italy to investigate so-called “leaks” about the Russian connection. During their meeting the Italians denied having “leaked” anything. But they told Durham/Barr something else. The Italian authorities said they had credible evidence of certain financial crimes by Donald Trump. Barr/Durham took this evidence back with them and Barr told Durham to add this to his investigation. Whether or to what extent Durham investigated this matter is unknown. But Barr was apparently not interested in pursuing the matter and it was dropped. I mean they met weekly so Barr could have inquired. So why not? Because I think Barr/Durham believed that pursuing the charges by the Italian authorities would upset Trump’s chances of being re-elected in 2020.

    During the almost 4 yr. investigation you kept saying in columns “Durham is coming! Durham is coming!” –that he would prove collusion by the FBI and the Clinton campaign. Durham spent nearly $6.5 million in taxpayer money pursuing his investigation. A way lot more than Mueller spent on his shorter but more credible investigation. In the only two criminal indictments Durham brought to trial both ended in acquittals. Durham was an utter failure in proving anything Trump, Barr and you were claiming. All of you have egg on your faces. And probably why you have not commented about John Durham lately.

    It will be interesting to see if Durham’s report, if it ever sees the light of day, makes any reference to the allegations made by the Italians about Trump. Probably not. Durham’s report will be a mass of disinformation with the sole purpose of justifying Durham’s dismal investigative record and trying to protect his boss, Bill Barr, who spent most of his time as AG covering for Donald Trump. Frankly, I think AG Garland would be better served by firing Durham now. Put Durham’s unfinished report in the DOJ archives as a sad reminder of what happens when the DOJ is politicized. Let Durham go into retirement and write his own book–maybe with the title “How I was Vindicated”. Few will probably read it which should be Durham’s legacy.

  3. For the people quoting Bible verses. It’s a fact that Jesus himself didn’t agree with all Bibles verses (written by other people decades apart from one another). Also remember Jesus was Jewish and would also be against antisemitism.

    Also apparently the “King James Version” of the Bible is actually contrary to the original Bible. Apparently the real King James (the monarch) wanted a divorce from his wife but the original version prohibited divorce. So many biblical scholars believe this was the primary motivation for creating the King James Version of the Bible.

    Also there are multiple versions of the 10 Commandments. Americans support the short edited version, not the original version.

    The last real Christian to lead the United States (a leader that actually “walked-the-walk” on Jesus) was Jimmy Carter. Carter has said that Jesus himself never denounced homosexuals, there is no record of him ever saying anything derogatory about homosexuals. This view is also shared by devout Christian and Republican, Ted Olson, former Solicitor General in the George W. Bush Administration.

      1. David,

        FYI, I’ll likely have to get back to this topic later, but you can ck the info out.

        Petition Seeks to Eliminate Chemtrails in Skies Over Texas
        January 19th 2023, 12:07 pm
        ‘We, the undersigned, demand our State Legislators pass legislation to protect families, pets, crops, water and environment from all negative side effects of… spraying of our sky.’
        Image Credit:
        Richard Newstead

        Fed up Texans are asking their representatives to stop the spraying of aerosolized particulate matter into the state’s skies – a phenomenon commonly referred to as “chemtrails.”

        In a petition recently launched at, the group Clean Skies Texas is collecting signatures to ask legislators to pass laws banning atmospheric aerosol spraying without prior approval and tesLIVE

        Mexico Bans ‘Solar Geoengineering’ Experimentation
        by Kelen McBreen
        January 23rd 2023, 11:55 am
        Government issues statement to companies experimenting with weather control
        Experts cite environmental and health dangers as reasons to halt the practiceting of the chemicals being sprayed.


        1. Oky1, those are not “chemtrails” but rather “contrails”, the is, condensation trails from the hot water in the jet exhaust condensing into fog in the cold air.

          So just eliminate jet airplanes.

          1. David,

            It’d help if they used the proper name for the subject in their search engine for the Globalist name for Chemtrails, Stratospheric aerosol injection or Geo-Engineering Aerosol Injection.


            There’s no good reason why the Gov of Oklahoma or Texas order the State Guard to send up some of our local F16s to order them to land at our airports for inspection. Let’s just Ck them out for what they’re up to/hualing/sparying on video for us owner Citizens. If they’ve nothing to hide I’m sure they’ll be happy to comply as they are operating outside the Rights of a US Citizens.!

            Happy Now? lol;)

          2. So just eliminate jet airplanes.

            Ok, Oh yeah, I suggest 1st we ban Bill Gates, George Soros, Klaus Schwab, Larry Fink, other multi billionaires & their wall St puppets like Al Gore, NGOs, govt ABC agencies, etc., all of their private jets 1st.

            Let us all test 1st & see how great it works out after a couple of years.

            In the meantime the Gen Pop can go on their marry way.

            Happy Now. LOL;)

      2. Besides, I hate the B*stards spraying chem Trails, clouding my otherwise Oklahoma sunny days!

        Imagine, in January & months, cutting our sunshine off 2-4-more hours early because of the Ahole spray across the whole sky.

        And anyone can clearly see it’s not all jets spraying Geo-Engineering Aerosol Injections, aka Chemtrails.

      3. Responding to David B. Benson

        My point was everyone has an “interpretation” of religion. Some of these points are inconclusive, impossible to verify.

        What seems to agreed upon facts, by Biblical scholars, is that King James VI of Scotland and became King James I of England “preferred the company of men over women” when he married 14 year old Anne of Denmark. This was the conclusion of King James employee, Thomas Fowler, spying on Anne engineering the marriage. Maybe King James would support equal marriage rights?

        Although they never got divorced, King James did clarify the circumstances justifying divorce. Both families had political and financial reasons to get married.

        If there were only one “interpretation” we wouldn’t have numerous religious denominations, only one church.

    1. I’ve actual lived through life observing this in real time, many people here in US abandoned Jesus, but instead of being neutral they went straight to fulfilling Lucifer’s objects, even if it’s against their own best interest.

      I remember writing about this very topic 20-25 years ago. I’ll stick with Jesus!

  4. Happened to read this in the comments to an article on Bari Weis’ site. An article, BTW, about Beyonce selling her soul to Dubai oligarchs for $24 million.

    Things I don’t understand . . .

    People who think a conservative Christian who refuses to decorate a cake for a gay wedding is a monstrous bigot, but a conservative Muslim who kills a gay person is just…different?

  5. Jonathan: One homophobe on this blog says “perverts” should take their business to bakers who will cater to them. They shouldn’t be able to tell Jack Phillips how to run his business–his “Christian beliefs” should be respected.

    I am not a student of the Bible. At my parents insistence, who thought I needed some “religious instruction”, I was sent to Sunday school at the local Presbyterian church for about 2 years when I was about 12 or 13. I don’t recall much about Sunday school classes except that our God is a “loving” God.. But we were also instructed in the 10 Commandments. We were told that if we violated any of them we could go to Hell and suffer for eternity. I never could reconcile what appeared to be contradictory teachings so I stopped going to Sunday school. Besides, my interests had shifted to sports and girls. The latter became an increasing fascination.

    But I digress. I remember another thing from Sunday school instruction. That the Jesus of the Bible was a humble person and told his followers to serve the “least among us”. It was a phrase that has stuck with me ever since. So I did some research to see if I could find the phrase. It’s in Matthew 25:40: “the King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me”. Mother Teresa made that central to her lifelong mission. That is what I think Pope Francis was saying in his statement this week: “Being homosexual should not be a crime”. The Pope thinks LGBTQ+ people should be welcomed into the Church. I think if Jesus were alive today he would embrace the Pope’s statement.

    Which brings us back to Jack Phillips and his refusal to serve the LGBTQ+ community. I don’t know what is in his “heart”, why he thinks LGBTQ+ people don’t deserve the same treatment in his bake shop as straight couples. As a “Christian” he has not followed the admonitions in Matthew 25:40. He apparently identifies with the goals of the ADF because his photo is featured on their website. The ADF wants to recriminalize the LGBTQ+ community. Fortunately, other denominations don’t share the views of Phillips or the ADF. There are LGBTQ Rabbis and ministers. I take solace in this and the new position of the Catholic Church that being LGBTQ+ is not a crime that community should be treated with respect. Too bad some on this blog don’t also share that view.


    1. .”and told his followers to serve the “least among us”.”

      “But whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone fastened around his neck and to be drowned in the depth of the sea.”

      What should we do with you? Put a millstone around your neck and drown you or educate you? Are you educable?

      1. And yet the govts, Pharma ,Hospitals, Docs, old media & others are promoting & shooting lil kids with a possible Gene-editing not a Vax that’s admitted will not protect against CV19 or stop transmission & offers nothing but possible harm to those shot with it.

        Maybe I should start some Millstone MFG shops since demand is far outpacing supply.

    2. “Jack Phillips and his refusal to serve the LGBTQ+ community”

      That is an outright lie. He is very willing to serve the LGBQTLMNOPXYZ community. He will make members of that community any cake they like, so long as it does not convey a message that offends him. They can order birthday cakes, farewell cakes, welcome cakes, holiday cakes, just-because cakes, anything they want. For all I know he may even be willing to sell them anniversary cakes. But he won’t sell them same-sex-wedding cakes or transition cakes, for the same reason as he wouldn’t sell me a “Jesus is not god” cake, and he probably wouldn’t sell a Catholic an “On This Rock I Will Found My Church” cake.

    3. What seems odd to me is why anyone would off information on their sexuality in the first place unless they suspected it would trigger the receiver. I have bought many things in my life and never had to offer my sexuality during the purchase. Someone is looking for a fight.

  6. Why do the faceless bureaucrats in the Colorado Civil Rights Commission have a multi-year, raging hard on for this poor baker?

    Because they enjoy a taxpayer-funded, lifetime supply of Viagra. As long as they are safely ensconced in their privileged, well-paid lairs, they can and will harness the virtually unlimited resources and power of the state. To hold American citizens in bondage to their perverse, politically driven fetishes. The bureaucrats’ appetites will never be sated.

    The way to stop this nonsense? Take away their Viagra. Make the bureaucrats personally liable for the consequences of their actions. Through the loss of their jobs. By holding them personally responsible to their victims in damages.

    Otherwise, they’ll just pop another blue pill and come back for more.

  7. Here’s a reasonable hypothetical to consider. What if a proud boy goes to a Jewish bakery and asked the baker to bake a cake with a swastika on it? Should the Jewish baker be required to bake the cake? Would the Jewish baker have the right to refuse to bake such a cake due to his religious beliefs? There have been many posting on this blog today who believe that a baker must be required to bake a cake depicting something that offends his belief. I call for those who take up this position to openly declare that a Jewish baker must bake a cake for a Nazi. Will there be even one?

    1. I think the question is whether a pink and blue cake is expressive in the same way as a swastika-decorated cake. Probably not, and that’s what the lower courts found. At the same time, do we want the courts to be deciding what custom-made products are expressive and what are not, or should that be up to the person making the product? The baker considered this expressive and therefore declined to use his talents to support something he opposed. Maybe it’s better to draw the line at custom-made products that are arguably expressive rather than having to determine case by case which of them are expressive and which not.

    2. Not exactly the same, because in our culture a swastika is inherently expressive. A pink cake with blue frosting is not, as Mr Philips acknowledged when he originally agreed to make the cake, until the client told him what it was for.

      So the proper analogy is someone who orders a cake frosted in grey, speckled irregularly with small golden dots, and after the baker has agreed to this odd request reveals that it’s to celebrate Hitler’s birthday, the grey represents the ashes of burned Jews, and the gold represents their gold teeth ready to be picked out of the ashes.

      Not inherently expressive, but expressive nonetheless. Once the baker knows the message it’s intended to convey, he can’t unknow it, nor can he change the fact that by making it he will be conveying that message.

      And that is the key point where the appeals court went off the rails. They could only have done so because they were looking for an excuse to go off the rails, so they found one. The next court in the chain will have to correct them.

    3. PS: It wouldn’t be the Jewish baker’s religious beliefs that such a cake would offend. He would of course rightly take great offense; any decent baker would, and a Jewish one especially, but not on religious grounds. Not that that is at all relevant here. This isn’t really a free exercise case, it’s a freedom of speech case. The free exercise clause is just thrown in for swank.

      PPS: Also, I know of no evidence that the Proud Boys are antisemitic. Just by the way.

    4. @Thinkitthrough…

      The neo-Nazi is not a member of a protected class. So any baker could refuse to do it. And in Germany, one would call the police because making the cake, or even asking for it would be illegal.

      But here in the US… the issue is of one’s personal constitutional rights and those of a protected class.
      So a restaurant refusing service to a black patron would clearly be illegal.

      Now here, if we look at the cake baker… does he refuse all services to the LGBT+ community?
      If so, that would be illegal.
      If he refused to make a wedding cake w two grooms or two brides… that would be a question of his religious beliefs against the rights of the protected class.
      If he refused to sell a gay couple a generic wedding cake… it would be illegal because he’s refusing service.

      That’s where more context is needed.

      Ask him to make a Halloween cake. He’ll refuse. Now what happens if its a Wicca who asked for the cake? He’s violating their religious freedoms.
      But the court would side with him and not the Wicca.

      Turley is right that they should have taken a closer look at his freedom of speech.


  8. Jonathan: Jack Phillips has been fighting the state of Colorado for ten years for the right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people. The Q is where is he getting all the money for the attorneys? He is obviously not a wealthy person like Donald Trump. Not to worry. His attorneys are paid by the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF). What is the ADF? The ADF was founded 30 years ago by the Christian right that advocates the recriminalization of sexual acts between consenting LGBTQ+ individuals–not only in the US but worldwide. The ADF contends, erroneously, that LGBTQ+ people are more likely to engage in pedophilia. It also claims the “homosexual agenda” will destroy Christianity. The ADF was one of the most influential groups behind the Trump administration’s attacks on LGBTQ+ rights. The ADF has vigorously supported state-sponsored sterilization of trans people in countries around the world. On its website the ADF says it “seeks to recover the robust Christendomic theology of the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries. This is catholic, universal orthodoxy and it is desperately crucial for cultured renewal. Christians must strive to build glorious cultured cathedrals, rather than shanty tin sheds”. (I couldn’t make up such bizarre language if I tried!)

    The ADF has brought hundreds of lawsuits in pursuit of its Christian agenda. The Jack Phillips case is not the first of such litigation attacking LGBTQ+ rights. The ADF defends its litigation: “And in the course of now hundreds of cases the ADF has now fought involving the homosexual agenda, one thing is certain: There is no room for compromise with those who would call evil ‘good'”. So it’s a given that ADF will appeal its latest defeat in Colorado all the way to the SC. They hope to score another win with the conservative majority. Jack Phillips is just the vehicle to turn the US back to the 3rd-5th centuries when Christiandom ruled supreme–when heretics and gay people were burned at the stake!

    Now comes Pope Francis this week and in a statement says that, although the Catholic Church still believes that homosexuality is a “sin”, it does not support the criminalization or discrimination against the LGBTQ+ community. The Pope’s statement is a direct challenge to the ADF agenda here and worldwide. You are a conservative Roman Catholic. You also support Phillips’ case. How do you reconcile the Pope’s statement of the Church and your desire to see Philipps prevail–the ability to discriminate against LGBTQ+ people? You are walking a tightrope. I suppose you might rationalize by saying you simply support Phillips on purely “free speech” grounds. But so does the ADF and their goal is the criminalize all LGBTQ+ activities. The ADF has a much larger agenda.

    This raises the issue of whether the Phillip’s case is just another Establishment Clause case or a 1st Amendment issue. You would like the Court to address it under the latter. But if Phillips prevails that means “free speech”, the 1st Amendment, runs in only ONE direction– protecting Phillips’ right to discriminate. What about 1st Amendment protections for LGBTQ+ people. What about the Equal Protection clause of the Constitution? If the ADF has its way we will return to a time when LGBTQ+ couples had to fear prosecution if some one was peeping through their bedroom window. That’s not a place I want to go back to.

    What is revealing about your column is that you don’t mention that ADF is financing the Philipps litigation. They have a hidden agenda–to criminalize LGBTQ+ people. Is that also your hidden agenda?

    1. Wow! You make a lot of serious allegations. I am a donor to ADF although I am not religious and would happily make a cake for a same sex wedding. If you can substantiate your claim that ADF wants to criminalize sex between consenting gay adults, I will no longer be a donor.

      1. Barnum: Thank you for your Q. If you look at the ADF website there is nothing there that specifically mentions criminalizing LGBTQ+ behavior. But if you look under “Marriage in the Future” it clearly states that marriage is only between and man and a woman. Under the same heading there are “Three Key Campaigns Regarding Marriage” that states: “opponents of marriage [between only a man and woman] will not stop at removing the foundation of civilization. They will redesign society at the cost of your religious freedom” Now, I don’t think the LGBTQ+ community wants to “redesign society”. They don’t want to destroy “civilization” or your “religious freedom”. They only want the same legal rights as heterosexual couples–the right to marry and enjoy other legal rights afforded under the Constitution. But ADF uses this kind of language to appeal to those, maybe like you, who support “religious freedom”. I too support that freedom–the “freedom” to worship as you choose. But ADF’s real goal is to deny similar freedoms to the LFBTQ+ community.

        ADF claims to be the world’s largest legal organization. It may be. It has thousands of lawyers here and around the world that work with state legislatures to overturn LGBT legal protections and challenges them in the courts. Do you recall Prop. 8 in California back in 2008? It was a ballot measure to amend the state constitution to ban same-sex marriage. The measure narrowly passed with 52.24% of the vote. The ban was immediately challenged in the courts. The ADF, along with affiliated groups, were allowed to defend the measure. A US District Court in Calif. eventually ruled the measure unconstitutional. ADF appealed all the way to the SC that ruled in 2013–upholding the District Court ruling.

        ADF is very active internationally through a subsidiary called “ADF International” (ADFI). ADFI works to defeat pro-LGBTQ+ protections in many countries. In Belize ADFI worked to try to keep the law that criminalized LBGTQ+ sex on the books. That law was eventually declared unconstitutional by the Belize SC in 2016. There are other examples in India, Romania, Russia, Jamaica and other countries. For further reading I suggest you read a long article “Alliance Defending Freedom” in the journal of the Southern Poverty Law Center. Some on the right call the SPLJ a “left-wing” advocacy group. You be the judge.

        I don’t know your motive for donating to ADF. Defending “religious freedom” seems a worth goal. And who can complain about defending the “free speech” rights of devout Christians. But the real agenda of the ADF is to marginalize and criminalize LGBTQ+ people. It wants to take away their right to marry, to reimpose sodomy laws, and force them back into the closet. I won’t support any organization that wants to do that!

  9. Turley claims: “With this denial of his constitutional rights…”. The Court didn’t agree there was any denial of any of this religious fanatic’s constitutional rights because baking and decorating a pink cake with blue frosting does not constitute speech or violate anyone’s freedom of religion. A pink cake with blue frosting couldn’t be construed to promote gender transition in the mind of any reasonable person. It might be different if he was asked to fashion male genitalia being severed with a scalpel as a cake topper, but that’s not what the issue was. He’s just a rabble rouser and trouble maker posing as a cake baker who tries to shove his religion down everyone else’s throats. This is just part of the advocacy for culture wars that Turley is paid to promote.

    1. “He’s just a rabble rouser and trouble maker….” I think that applies to Mr. or Ms. Scardetta. He purposely asked a decent cake artist to violate his conscience even though he knew there are plenty of other cake artists who would accommodate him. He or she gives transgender persons a bad reputation as bullies.

    2. “A pink cake with blue frosting couldn’t be construed to promote gender transition in the mind of any reasonable person”

      The client explicitly told him that it did exactly that. Once he had that knowledge, by definition it did.

  10. Does this mean that if I go to a concert and the singer won’t perform a song which I request that I can sue them because I feel hurt and discriminated against?

      1. Colorado has been californicated. From red to purple to deep deep blue thanks to the influx of tax refugees from the Golden States, even in the high country and conservative plains and west slope.

  11. Just checked, Amazon has lots of cake toppers for lesbians and gay male couples.

    If the small business cake shop won’t serve them, they can simply give that money to a business that will serve them.

    If Amazon actually gets into the wedding cake making business, they might just put those bigoted cake shops out of business altogether.

  12. Years ago I worked in the printing industry and rule #1 was to remain “non-political” and acceptable to all religious interpretations.

    Our goal was to try NOT read what we were printing, it was none of our business.
    It was the customer’s prerogative to write content, not the company employees who were receiving paychecks from customers.

    By the nature of some businesses, you don’t discriminate against anyone for any reason -or- maybe choose a different business.

    A cake baker could deny producing nude or sexual images for both straight and LGBT customers – same policy for all customers. Why would any cake shop owner be opposed to offering PG-rated images on cakes?

    1. 1. That may have been your employer’s policy. It’s not every printer’s. Making it the law would violate the first amendment.

      2. I would bet that even your employer would have refused to knowingly print Mein Kampf, or KKK propaganda.

    1. EvHall,
      Ah! But that is where things get interesting.
      You see, according to the snowflakes, “Conservatives” make those people at certain restaurants feel . . . unsafe.
      Some will even go as far as to say that “Conservatives” speech is equal to violence, and call for their ouster from places like colleges and restaurants.
      Interesting how that works.

      1. Yes, Farmer, that is exactly what happened at Cornell University a few months ago, when Ann Coulter arrived on campus to speak. She was shouted out of town by the lunatic left. Of course, as far as we know, the perps are still unpunished and in good standing.

  13. In a country of 350 million people it defies understanding why any given person needs to use this one particular baker. Why can’t people just be considerate? Do you really need a transition cake anyway? If so, why not give somebody else your business? Why not live and let live? This kind of provocation tends to come back to haunt the provocateurs and is not a symptom of a mature and healthy person or society. Americans have had it so good for so long we have to invent problems.

    1. deboluccia,
      Great post.
      I just commented to Karen S. about the live and let live mentality.
      Does not seem to be in woke Leftists mind set.
      Only conform, and bow down to us or we will try to cancel you.

    2. Once upon a time there was a notion of “freedom to contract.” In fact, a case decided by SCOTUS involved a bakery in Upstate New York. Lochner v. New involved violations of New York’s Bakeshop Act – a labor law under which bakery workers could not work more than 10 hours/day or 60 hours/week. Lochner lost in Oneida County Court, the Appellate Division and the New York Court of Appeals. On appeal to SCOTUS, he won. SCOTUS found the right of freedom to contact in the Fourteenth Amendment. By many accounts, the decision was not a popular one. That said, it seems to me that requiring a baker to make a cake to celebrate a lifestyle about which he is unfamiliar would be like asking anyone to perform a service with which the service provider is unfamiliar. For example, in New York State, it is a violation of the Professional Rules of Conduct for an attorney to accept cases for which he or she does not have the requisite background and training. A corporate attorney is not likely to accept a criminal defense case.

  14. In addition to all of the other arguments against the CADA, this certainly seems like involuntary servitude in violation of the 13th Amendment.

  15. CADA is unconstitutional and must be immediately struck down by the judicial branch, including the Supreme Court.

    The Colorado baker, alone, may “claim and exercise” dominion over his private property.

    The right to private property is absolute or the right to private property does not exist and all property is public.

    The right to private property exists in the 5th Amendment.

    The Supreme Court enjoys the power of Judicial Review and is the ultimate arbiter in the United States.

    Justices have sworn an oath to support the literal meaning and evident intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    Justices are not political philosophers, theorists, designers or engineers, enjoying no power to legislate or amend.

    Americans have been provided the body of natural and God-given rights and freedoms in addition to enumerated rights and freedoms.

    Beside the freedom of speech is the freedom of opinion, which speech expresses.

    Without question, the freedom of discrimination is natural, God-given and fully constitutional.

    Success or failure, acceptance or rejection, assimilation or severance of any idea, endeavor, individual or group is not guaranteed by the Constitution, and does not constitute any power to deny the constitutional rights and freedoms or other individuals or groups.

    CADA is unconstitutional, while denying freedom, the freedom of choice, the freedom of thought, the freedom of opinion and the freedom of discrimination.

      1. I see within that enormous cognitive process ensconced in your cavernous cranial vault that you are deliberately, fraudulently and erroneously conflating scrutiny and choice with bodily injury and property damage. Who are you fooling?

  16. Responding to James:

    What Americans praise and miss about “The Greatest Generation” was that these veterans fought the Nazis and Imperial Japan during World Two. They did so bravely and without much fanfare, they literally protected the USA from invasion by fascists nations.

    The “Greatest Generation” of Americans ever to live were strongly “Anti-Fascist”. Although most people, including myself, don’t agree with their means. The group “Antifa” means “Anti-Fascist”.

    The extreme Trump supporters that attempted a coup on January 6 (not disparaging all Trump voters, just the extreme fascist wing), this extreme Trump wing tried to blame their own fascism on “Antifa” (group meaning Anti-Fascism). The insurrectionists were trying blame a group opposed to insurrection.

    Of course, there was not a shred of proof that Antifa had any participation in the January 6 coup attempt. America’s “Greatest Generation” generation did share the same end goal as Antifa, but probably wouldn’t approve of the group’s tactics. World War Two was fought to defeat fascism.

    I hope most Americans are also “Anti-Fascist” (which “Antifa” is named for).

      1. We helped the Soviet Union because the allies knew that Germany couldn’t handle two fronts at the same time. Hitler’s invasion of the Soviet Union was the 3rd Reich’s downfall.

        1. The Soviet Union was the most murderously regime in history and western journalists such as walter duranty covered for them in the 1930’s during collectization and purges.


    1. Here’s more BS alleging that WW2 veterans were the original ‘antifa’.

      Very few (let’s say none) WW2 veterans were anancho-communists from upper middle class backgrounds living in their parents basement, hiding behind masks, terrorizing anyone whose disagrees and burning property.

      Since antifa is all about joy and enlightenment, I suggest they take their message to areas where they aren’t tolerated by the local establishment and see how that goes for them. Would love to see antifa get their a@@ handed to them in some town in the heartland. Of course, these brave warriors stay away from such places.

      And on another front, whenever I see the “brave, masked wonderful warriors of antifa” ™ demonstrating at a pro-vaxx rally or protecting a drag queen story hour, I can’t help but wonder what either has to do with Marx, Lenin or Dialectical Materialism. I thought they were good communists.

      Maybe one of our antifa loving s@@tlibs friends can explain all of the above.


    2. Ashcroft, a group can call themselves anti-fascist all they want but when they use the same tactics as a nazi they are also nazi’s. Have you forgotten how they beat down a gay reporter? For you to think that just because they use the name anti-fascist that they have proven themselves not to be fascist is beyond comprehension. Their actions speak louder than their words about what they are and their actions say that who they are starts with a capital “N”.

    3. “The group “Antifa” means “Anti-Fascist”.”

      Why are Antifa apologists afraid to name what Antifa is *for*?

      It is *for* communism. It seeks to establish a dictatorship in America. It is a domestic terrorist group intent on the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. Its propaganda leaders hide behind the skirt of being “anti-fascist.” And its shock troops hide behing the skirts of innocent protestors.

      If we had a DOJ/FBI motivated by justice, Antifa would have been disbanded long ago, and its leaders would be in federal prison.

Leave a Reply