In prior columns, academic articles, and my book, “The Indispensable Right, I discuss the never-ending litigation targeting Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who declined to make cakes that violated his religious beliefs. Phillips continues to be the subject of continuing lawsuits despite the Supreme Court upholding his right to decline to make expressive products for ceremonies or celebrations that he finds immoral. Now the Colorado Supreme Court has dismissed an action brought by a transgender lawyer against the cake shop and its owner.
Phillips has been the target of an unrelenting litigation campaign for over a decade.
In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked Phillips to make a cake for their same-sex marriage. As a devout Christian, Phillips declined. He would sell any pre-made cakes to customers, but said that he could not morally make a cake for same-sex marriages.
That refusal turned Phillips’ tiny bakery into ground zero for the long-standing battle between religious rights and anti-discrimination laws. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Phillips must make the cakes under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA).
The case went all the way to the Supreme Court in what many of us hoped would be a final resolution of this conflict. I had long criticized the framing of the case (and other cases) under the religious clauses as opposed to taking this as a matter of free speech. In the end, the Supreme Court punted in a maddening 2018 decision that technically ruled in favor of Phillips based on a finding that the Commission showed anti-religious bias against Phillips.
As a result, Phillips was thrown back into an endless grind of litigation as activists targeted his bakery for additional challenges by demanding cakes with other messages that Phillips found offensive.
In 2023, the Supreme Court delivered a major victory for free speech in 303 Creative v. Elenis when it ruled that Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, could refuse service to a same-sex marriage. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote “the framers designed the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment to protect the ‘freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think.’ … They did so because they saw the freedom of speech ‘both as an end and as a means.’”
The decision was not just a vindication for Smith but Phillips. However, Phillips continued to languish in the Colorado system, spending over a decade in non-stop challenges and lawsuits. Because the Supreme Court could not reach a clear resolution, it left Phillips to the continued pursuit of activists targeting his bakery.
The latest dispute began when Autumn Scardina spoke to the wife of Phillips and requested a pink cake with blue frosting to celebrate her gender transition. When the shop declined, Scardina filed an anti-discrimination claim with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (“the Division”) under section 24-34-306, C.R.S. (2024).
In her complaint, Scardina suggested that this was not a targeting of the famous cake shop but merely an effort to get a birthday cake.
In the complaint, Scardina wrote: “Ms. Scardina repeatedly heard Defendants’ advertisements that they were “happy” to sell birthday cakes to LGBT individuals. Hopeful that these claims were true, on June 26, 2017, Ms. Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop from Denver to order a birthday cake for her upcoming birthday.”
The shop said that they could make such a cake. However, “Ms. Scardina then informed Masterpiece Cakeshop that the requested design had personal significance for her because it reflects her status as a transgender female.” When the shop noted that it did not make cakes for gender transitions, Scardina insisted that it was for her birthday.
Having established the basis for the lawsuit, she then filed an administrative action. Eventually, however, she jumped from the administrative process into the courts. That would prove the procedural problem for the Colorado Supreme Court.
Scardina prevailed in the lower courts but the case was dismissed by the Colorado Supreme Court on technical grounds.
Justice Melissa Hart wrote in the Colorado Supreme Court’s majority opinion that
“The underlying constitutional question this case raises has become the focus of intense public debate: How should governments balance the rights of transgender individuals to be free from discrimination in places of public accommodation with the rights of religious business owners when they are operating in the public market? We cannot answer that question.”
The most notable aspect of this opinion is that, after a decade, Phillips is still being dragged through the courts despite the fact that the Supreme Court has recognized his free speech right to decline such contracts.
Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) has defended Phillips and Jake Warner, ADF senior counsel, stated “Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It’s time to leave him alone.”
It is doubtful that activists will heed that request.
Here is the opinion: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina
I have not heard Phillips complain about being targeted by the Left. They unintentionally provide him with the opportunity to witness his faith and inspire others.
And sell many, many more baked goods to his supporters!
He can refuse business. But he’s not witnessing his faith, he’s acting on his prejudice.
He hasn’t pre-judged anything. He is calling a spade a spade and if the entitled homos can’t deal, tough.
Once again the Free Speech absolutist Turley is ignoring one of the most blatant violation of Free Speech in years; Florida threatening criminal charges against a TV station for airing a pro-choice ad. To make things even worse, Florida is calling the ad false, when in fact it is completely truthful.
https://reason.com/2024/10/09/florida-threatens-local-tv-station-with-prosecution-over-dangerous-pro-choice-ad/
Sammy, you are correct in thinking that controlling free speech in Florida is against the law. However, the law in Florida clearly states that an abortion can be performed if the mother’s life is in danger. You simply support the scare tactics of the Democratic party. I will take your argument more seriously if you can provide even one time where you have supported the rights of Jack Phillips to voice his conscience. Short of that, we can understand that you think through a jaundiced eye.
The text of the law says that, but it is ill defined and the interpretation has been far stricter.
prove it
The ad is false:
” While Florida’s six-week ban contains a provision allowing abortions when they are “necessary to save the pregnant woman’s life or avert a serious risk of substantial and irreversible physical impairment of a major bodily function of the pregnant woman other than a psychological condition,”
That’s right from your Reason article dumb dumb.
“Phillips has been the target of an unrelenting litigation campaign for over a decade.”
I cannot understand why any person would operate a business in CO or in any other state like it.
Even if you win the suits, those nonobjective, unjust “anti-discrimination” laws make your life a living hell. And they create a chronic atmosphere of suspicion: Is this person a real customer/employee? Or just one sacrificing me to their cause and trying to loot me for a payoff?
The only way this, um…, people…will leave him alone is if there are consequences for this harassment. There aren’t. There won’t be. And therefore, this will continue.
If trump lies so easily about no empty seats at his rallies (FACT: There are lots of empty seats easily visible at his rallies). What do you actually believe about what he says?
^^ Paid DNC troll. Totally off topic. Ignore. ^^
On Target!
When he starts to lie about things like being a woman, then I’ll know he’s lost his mind and I shouldn’t vote for him. As of now he may be exaggerating, but I do not care if the rally is sold out or not.
“The only requirement for being a transgender woman is being a man.”
And yet again: Someone finds the need to drag Trump into discussions..
In stead of focussing on Trump, maybe focussing on the unselected Ms Harris and her many many many failures during her now 3.5 years in Office?
“In stead of focussing on Trump, maybe focussing on the unselected Ms Harris and her many many many failures during her now 3.5 years in Office?”
Unelected? She was elected VP in 2020.
She was selected by her party to be the nominee for President in the summer of 2024.
What about this do you not understand?
And could you list her failures? As VP her only responsibility is to vote in the Senate when there is a tie.
Do you understand how our 3 branches of government work?
Turley pointed out that the Masterpiece cake shop issue is based on religious beliefs, not free speech. Phillips chose to adhere to his beliefs, which brought with it consequences. Religious beliefs are often incompatible with public accommodation, particularly when the business is open to the public. As long as Phillips chooses to strictly adhere to his beliefs, he will constantly be subjected to the consequences of that choice. That’s just the nature of holding onto beliefs that do not allow flexibility.
Orthodox Hasidic Jews must adhere to strict rules about work on the Sabbath, where they are not allowed to do anything that they consider to be work, even pushing a button or pushing a stroller while going for a walk. Their rules bind them because their religion demands it. Despite these strict observances and requirements that hinder everyday chores and necessities, they work hard to find ways to ‘bend’ the rules and find loopholes so they can continue to do what life requires them to do. If they can do that, why can’t Phillips do it? Christians can be flexible when they want to and often ignore essential tenets of their religion when they become so inconvenient that they make up some excuse to avoid it or ignore it. Even the most devout Christians do this. Phillips can do this, too, but by strictly sticking to his beliefs, he will continue to suffer the consequences of exercising that choice. He can avoid further litigation by being a little more flexible.
The man has a right to his beliefs. You’re suggesting he “creatively” abandon them. Perhaps he simply has more integrity than you do.
The man made a choice. Nobody forced him to adhere to his beliefs. He must also accept that his choice has consequences. He bears the burden and by having a business open to the public, he will be exposed to the secular world and the law, leading to potential conflicts with his beliefs. Christians have always made exceptions when their beliefs and religious requirements become an inconvenience or a hindrance. Phillips believes same-sex marriage is a sin, and it is contrary to his religion. The problem is he claims to have deep religious beliefs, and the idea of same-sex marriage is contrary to the Bible. There are many things contrary to the Bible or dictated by the Bible that are constantly ignored because they pose an inconvenience or are ‘unrealistic’ in real-world applications. Some call it cafeteria Christians. They often pick and choose which of their “deeply held religious beliefs” they adhere to, depending on the cultural issue of the day.
I used Hasidic Jews as a good example. They have strict religious beliefs and requirements. But they also go to extreme lengths to seek loopholes and workarounds to avoid violating the rules purely by using technicalities and even creating elaborate contraptions and “rules.” Phillips does not observe every single rule of his religion. Only the ones that allow him to avoid the things he does not particularly like. He already admits he has no problem selling same-sex couples a pre-made cake. He’s already made an exception despite claiming “deeply held religious beliefs.” His position has more to do with bigotry than genuine religious belief. He’s using his religion to justify discrimination. It’s still his choice, and it still brings consequences.
“He must also accept that his choice has consequences.”
Since when did the Left start believing that a person has to accept the consequences of his choices?
Certainly not with student loans. Or inflation. Or immigration run amok. Or the criminals they favor. Or public educators. Or a botched FEMA response. Or . . .
I don’t think that’s a statement of principle. It’s empty words used to justify an ends.
Your non sequitur shows you don’t have an argument. The point is still about Phillips choosing to adhere to his religious beliefs. The consequences and ‘suffering’ are his to bear, but he seems to want to avoid them by using his religious beliefs as an excuse to force others to carry the burden along with him.
What ? YOUR SIDE HAS LOST THE ARGUMENT IN THE LAW AND THE LEGAL BATTLE REALM.
The religious person in question has been UPHELD, his beliefs HONORED in the law, as the Constitution states.
All we have now is you LOSERS making more whiffs with more lowlife lawfare swings, which are harassment, with your corrupt lawyers and courts, which the demoncrat party has used as bashing attack instruments and criminal misconduct, because they have shown nothing is beyond them, their depravity, their bloodlust, their hatreds.
The “consequences” are you freaks will harass the religious man who won till the day he dies, never admitting your defeat, the USA slapping you down as you deserve.
Clearly, your demonic brethren hope to crack the armor of the law somehow, or convince enough morons of your lies and change your defeats into some twisted psychotic freak show, the next depravity or the past ones you lost in legal battles thrust upon everyone to accept and embrace.
No, he won on strictly technical grounds. The court did not address the question they hoped would settle the argument. That’s why Turley pivoted to the 303 case.
“but he seems to want to avoid them by using his religious beliefs as an excuse to force others to carry the burden along with him.”
First, how is he “forcing” anyone to do anything?
Second, what “burden” are you talking about?
Third, who are these “others”?
Just plain silliness.
“First, how . . .”
Good luck getting straight answers to those perfectly articulated questions.
“Your non sequitur shows you don’t have an argument.”
Me: “[More] empty words used to justify an ends.”
Rinse and repeat.
Your side lost all those consequences, right ? That was pointed out in the article.
So you support harassment of that religious person.
Lawfare.
That’s the level of your support, the level of a scoundrel, of a dirty lawyer, a skumbag.
His religious beliefs have already won the case, and made your whines and cries sad.
In other words, your whole point is to attack the man who won the LAW and LEGAL BATTLES based upon his RELIGION and THE LAW, and claim the consequences are you sick low life skumbag haters harassing the guy for winning, with more lawyers and sick demoncrat lawfare.
So you’re corrupt to the core. Take your L, loser.
100%!!
You know who else could be flexible? The homos that are harassing this guy. But, don’t you worry your pretty little head about that.
These mentally deranged homos are not civil rights heroes, they are nasty, petty, belligerent miserable little $hits that deserve a beat down of epic proportions. They are an embarrassment to themselves, “their community”, and to the justice system. I wish nothing but continued emptiness until they see the errors of their way.
PS: F you for trying to cover for their disgusting behavior. You are not their attorney, you are not obligated to pretend on their behalf.
He opened his business to the public, subject to secular law. This means he will be subject to issues that conflict with his religious beliefs. That’s the risk he chose to accept. Refusing to make a cake for a particular customer because of who they are by claiming ‘deeply held religious beliefs’ is particularly disingenuous. Customers could be divorcees, single moms, or cohabitating without getting married, which would also be a problem according to his ‘sincerely held religious beliefs’. This is not about his beliefs; it is about using his religion to justify his bigotry.
And secular law said what….
The hell with the entitled homos
Phillips can do this, too, but by strictly sticking to his beliefs, he will continue to suffer the consequences of exercising that choice.
Look at you, Svelaz, the accidental Christian. What you said can be found throughout scripture. Well done!
Make sure that none of you suffers as a murderer, or thief, or evildoer, or a troublesome meddler; but if anyone suffers as a Christian, he is not to be ashamed, but is to glorify God in this name. For it is time for judgment to begin with the household of God; and if it begins with us first, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God? 1 Peter 4:15-17
Seriously, who the heck is Svelaz? Was this person so influential on this blog that he earned the ire of so many? What did he/she do that got so many riled up?
Was this person so influential on this blog that he earned the ire of so many?
🤔 Kind of like how the polio virus influenced Jonas Salk.
A rapist or pedophile earns similar ire.
Going the slanderous route S. Meyer?
“A rapist or pedophile earns similar ire.”
What is slanderous?
What isn’t true?
You are too accomodating to an overreaching, authoritarian political class George. Philips’ public accomodation is the retail counter of his shop. As far as I can tell there have been no complaints about discrimination in the selling of baked goods at his public shop. The kitchen, his property, supports two activities, a retail counter and a work for hire business.
I am not a priori opposed to the public accomodation aspect of this case. I do think that there is massive overreach on the part government in taking away freedoms then selling them back to us as part of a licensing regime.
It seems to me that what is at issue here is a very fundamental liberty: personal autonomy. It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the 1st Amendment at all.
Every human has the natural right to choose wether or not to enter into a contract to perform work for hire. A free person may base their choice on any rationale they choose, voiced or unvoiced, popular or unpopular, government-approved or not.
Seems more like a 13th Amendment issue, no?
F that tranny nazi for harrassing Philips.
Oh, by the way, it is my position that the Bill of Rights was meant to be read and understood by all citizens, not blurred, twisted, and subverted by lawyers and the politicsl class.
Well done.
“ Oh, by the way, it is my position that the Bill of Rights was meant to be read and understood by all citizens, not blurred, twisted, and subverted by lawyers and the political class.”
The law is always going to be subject to interpretation, always. That’s why there are lawyers and judges. Arguing for your point of view is precisely why we have the courts.
The law can be blurred, twisted, and subverted. Even judges and justices do it.
Not every citizen is going to interpret the law the same way.
“ A free person may base their choice on any rationale they choose, voiced or unvoiced, popular or unpopular, government-approved or not.”
As long as they abide by the laws and regulations passed by legislators and government officials elected by those free persons. That’s how it works. Those who believe they are unique because they have a religious belief is not an excuse to be exempt from the law.
“they work hard to find ways to ‘bend’ the rules and find loopholes so they can continue to do what life requires them to do. “
They work hard to follow the Torah. Fools like to turn the hard work of others into a frivolous game. That is why you never accomplished anything. Being left a failure, you turn to ignorance as your savior.
You’re missing the point. They work hard to bend the rules and look for loopholes because their rules are impractical or inconvenient. It means they know the rules are stupid or impossible. Instead of ignoring them, they choose to “avoid” breaking them by using loopholes and bending the rules to accommodate their needs. They would not look for workarounds and loopholes if they were genuinely devout.
Phillips can do the same. He can justify breaking his own religion’s rules on purely technical grounds. I mean, look at communion in most churches. Traditionally, it’s supposed to be wine or alcohol. Most use Welch’s grape juice. Come on. If they are as serious as they claim to be about “deeply held religious beliefs,” they would be adamant that they use real wine in communion. That’s how silly it is.
“You’re missing the point. They work hard to bend the rules…” (Chasidim)
You have zero critical thinking skills.
I said: “They work hard to follow the Torah.”
You have no moral compass to judge anyone and lack the intelligence to address my statement above.
“Phillips can do the same…”
Phillips is a moral person and acts morally. Why should he descend to your amoral level and stupidity?
” look at communion in most churches. Traditionally, it’s supposed to be wine or alcohol. Most use Welch’s grape juice. Come on. If they are as serious as they claim to be about “deeply held religious beliefs,” they would be adamant that they use real wine in communion. That’s how silly it is.”
Ask yourself, why not beer? Why not scotch? You are too ignorant to communicate with. It is not the alcohol. It is the grape.
Take note: Svelaz-George will not understand why I say the grape, but all others will be able to figure it out.
I swear sometimes I think Svelaz-George is just punking us. Could anyone be that dumb, and think they are clever?
Would any self respecting person make the ignorant comments that he does, and continue to show themselves here?
Is it the anonymity that enables him to endure looking like an idiot day in and day out?
Is that why he changed names, and maybe its not the first time?
He has alluded to having been here for a long time, but won’t say how long or under what other names.
George-Svelaz gets pleasure from being noticed even when he is noticed as a fool.
Yes, he is as dumb as he seems.
“Traditionally, it’s supposed to be wine or alcohol.”
Cite it.
Svelaz, you gotta be the most ignorant person I have ever met, regarding religion. Every time you speak about it you look like a total imbecile.
You think the celebration of the blood of the Christ is about whats in the freaking cup?
You’re the silly one.
The Left and Left Activist invent their own laws and legal theories. They think they are right when they are 100% wrong. They will continue to try and try as they invent more ways or so called legal theories that have no basis. They all went to the school of Lawerence Tribe, Jack Smith, Weissman etc. The way to stop them is hit them where it hurts, hit them in the pocketbook, go after their $$$$$, then they will stop.
“The Left and Left Activist invent their own laws and legal theories”
Yea, the right never does that.
trump keeping classified documents in his bathroom as reading material for his guests.
trump harassing women that he has sexually abused in the past.
trump asking for 12,000 votes to be found for him in Georgia.
trump and JD verbally abusing Haitians to the point there are death threats are made from trump and JD acholytes.
So you are fine with a transgender person not being welcome in our society.
But you have no problem when the President of the United States attempts a coup and tries to stay in office after losing an election?
You are fine with trump and JD using their free speech rights to incite followers to violence?
I suppose these are the thoughts you have been indoctrinated with in order to brainwash you into fighting against common sense? Oh well, your loss.
So did Biden, and as a VP he has no right to have them in his corvette..euh.. garage.. euh.. whatever.
But I do not see you complaining about that?
An what about the documents from Clintoin? Obama?
Nobody cared about those documents because.. oh..right..not Trump..
“You are fine with trump and JD using their free speech rights to incite followers to violence?”
Right..
Remind me again..
Who had 2 attempt on his life lately?
“But you have no problem when the President of the United States attempts a coup and tries to stay in office after losing an election?”
Which coup would that be?
Did I miss something in courts or so?
Could you please point me to the court documents stating this was an coup?
I saw mostly peacefull protesters, not like the ones in Portland, Chicago, Seattle and so on..
Hear hear! Break their bank.
We cannot answer that question.
Scotus answered that question in 303 Creative. Perhaps the learned members of the Colorado court don’t realize that the First Amendment applies in their state?
North Carolina National Guard can’t answer the question why one of their Blackhawk Helicopters blew away a site that was collecting goods for victims of Hurricane Helene.
The government is the enemy of Americans
If the U.S. SC can make up whole law (The President has absolute immunity, a doctrine not found in the Constitution).
Why can’t the Colorado SC make up law to protect people from being excluded from society?
I would exclude those malicious mentally addled spoiled brats from everything society has to offer except mental health until their are healed. I see no benefit to allowing them into society, just like any other malignancy, until they prove they are capable of conforming to society – it is a give and take, for everyone, not just them.
Good Lord man. Please telll me you’re not a Christian. Do you know what you’re saying?
So, round them up, put them in barbed wire camps until they bend to your rules. Those who don’t, gas them, then into the ovens?
He said get them mental health care, which is the exact thing your demoncrat party supports and spews from the rooftops of their communist block housing.
BTW this place is filled with jews not Christians, you dumb dumb.
There’s an old saying, the US Supreme Court is not final because it’s infallible, it’s infallible because it’s final. It is the final word on the interpretation of federal law (including the First Amendment), and the Colorado Supreme Court has no authority to disobey what the US Supreme Court says the First Amendment requires.
So we should reinstitute Dred Scott?
Or how about separate but equal?
“So we should reinstitute Dred Scott?
Or how about separate but equal?”
Who is we? The Colorado Supreme Court??
If you don’t understand the point of a post, just raise your hand, someone will dumb it down for you.
separate but equal >> together but unequal
Jurists are no longer interested in defining and refining the law for clarity. They know that leaves them vulnerable to being labelled as pariah’s and cancellation of their career ambitions! Fence-riding is the new resume builder for judges at any level. If you are undefined in scholarly legal stances you must be perfect! Of course these cases show the idiocy of such judicial posturing but who cares if Americans are ever exposed to frivolous lawsuits that ultimately bankrupt them and resolve nothing! Judges will become the new low position on the societal totem pole – go to court to get your pablum justice.
So since Mr. Phillips civil rights have been upheld by the Supreme Court, aren’t these subsequent lawsuits being filed by the sexual deviants and perverts frivolous? It would seem that they are an attempt to use lawfare to subvert Mr. Phillips civil rights. If this were found to be the case, the court should hold the plaintiff liable for all attorneys fees and court costs and as it was determined frivolous punitive damages award 3X those cost awarded. That would curtail this Queer nonsense and bring a deterrent to this further attacks on this victim.
Stop right there, Turley. What is the legal definition of religion?
Oops, there never was to begin with?
Then, how do you know that person is a devout Christian? Oh, he told ya so? Right?
What’s a woman?
just love how you Christian haters find bogus excuses to attack them.
Sad that Jack Phillips runs the only bakery in the entire state of Colorado so that freaks and weirdos have no other option for tasty pastry.
Lawfare is possible only because the courts permit it. The courts permit it because the courts (some of them, anyway) are not impartial. For individuals like this baker, it is a matter of his livelihood. For the attorneys involved, it is their livelihood. Hence lawfare persists to support the livelihood of the attorneys and the courts’ predation on the livelihood of the baker. That is how it works.
It’s simple: First Amendment > public accommodation laws.
Yup, and that just shows you’re a better lawyer than every judge on the Colorado Supreme Court.
“…Scardina suggested that this was not a targeting of the famous cake shop but merely an effort to get a birthday cake.”
This is such a big pile of bull doo doo that I can smell it from away. No doubt this person already was in contact with a lawyer before this person ever entered the shop. That’s how it works. Set up. We all know that the targeting of Phillips will continue until he finally says “basta” and closes shop. Such a pity, but this is the way of our country now.
That “person” IS a lawyer.
The complaint was filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Division. ✔️
This administrative action jumped to a lawsuit in the courts. ❌️
Fire those responsible in the Civil Rights Division.🤙
Scardina is a man, yet Turley calls him a her.
Alas even the good professor is not immune to the mind disease infecting so much of our modern culture.
As Camile Paglia – a libertine if there ever was one – has said, “a culture that believes nothing and tolerates everything is doomed.”
I hope the court can make the ones bringing these suits liable for all the court costs of the bakery. Unless this is the only bakery in Denver, it is obvious that the suits are frivolous.
Phillips is targeted. And will continue to be targeted as long as there are people willing to be clients for the plaintiffs’ bar.
Is there not one industrious LGBTQ+ baker interested in opening a shop in Lakewood, CO? Or at least anyone that doesn’t care about violating their own conscience? Jack Phillips would likely bake you a cake celebrating the Grand Opening. Just don’t ask for the cake to say anything else.
But that would dismiss the message the LGBTQwhatever is trying to get out.
And that message that they want to send is very clear: you need to bend to us, we do not have to bend to the law.. If you do not bend to us, we are going to cancel you or get you broke trying.
Sigh. Leave this man alone.