Colorado baker fined for refusing to bake cake for transgender woman

[TLK Valentine]

A Colorado Baker Is Fined For Refusing To Make A Cake For A Transgender Woman

DENVER — A Colorado baker who won a partial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the state's anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a birthday cake for a trans woman, a state judge has ruled.

In Tuesday's ruling, Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones said Autumn Scardina was denied a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday because of her transgender status in violation of the law. While Jack Phillips said he could not make the cake because of its message, Jones said the case was about a refusal to sell a product, not compelled speech.

He pointed out that Phillips testified during a trial in March that he did not think someone could change their gender and he would not celebrate "somebody who thinks that they can."

That's right, folks... it's the same baker as last time.

Thoughts?

 

[GallagherM]

It's just a cake.

Lol @Paulos23 I was thinking about writing the same thing haha! Time to get out the cake business.

 

[Paulos23]

He really needs to get out of the cake business if he is going to try to dictate who gets a cake.

 

[Lost4words]

World gone bonkers.

His business. Up to him who he decides to bake for.

 

[durangodawood]

World gone bonkers.

His business. Up to him who he decides to bake for.

Not quite.

For example, we have pretty strong anti racial discrimination laws for retail oriented businesses.

But no dogs allowed is ok. Sorry!

 

[Yttrium]

Not gonna work out for the baker this time around. Equal protection means if he makes birthday cakes for non-trans, he has to make birthday cakes for trans. Supreme Court stamped and approved already. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission isn't going to make the same dumb mistake it did last time. I sympathize with the baker wanting to stick to his religious principles, but he's going to have to adapt to the law.

 

[pescador]

World gone bonkers.

His business. Up to him who he decides to bake for.

Suppose you were refused service because you're single. The business required you to be married before you could buy there, Would you still say that it's up to him/her whom they do business with?

 

[Strathos]

I think he's just looking for an excuse to get in the news again and gain more publicity.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

It is a loose loose situation for this guy. If he makes the cake, then he is a flip flopper who sold out and has abandoned his religious beliefs. If he doesn't make the cake, then he is still the same religious discriminating bigot. At least he is staying in the new and getting free advertising.

 

[CRAZY_CAT_WOMAN]

World gone bonkers.

His business. Up to him who he decides to bake for.

He can also refuse to serve black people or women. Unless it's against the law to discriminate .

 

[Quartermaine]

Thoughts....if you can't keep your personal prejudices out of your business then maybe you should find some other line of work.

 

[*Starlight*]

The way I see it's it's not really a case of discrimination, but his freedom to create or not create specific artwork. If the same person came to him to ask for a cake that isn't related to any transgender stuff, he'd probably make it. Like in the previous case, he simply doesn't want to bake a specific cake, he's not refusing to serve any specific person.

Imagine, for example, a painter, and someone comes to him and asks him to paint inappropriate content. Or something else that he doesn't really want to paint. Should the painter be forced by law to make any kind of painting that anyone asks him to make? Should he never be allowed to refuse any work?

 

[visionary]

Abraham threw out his father's idols out of his store. Abraham and the Idol Shop appears in Genesis Rabbah chapter 38 and is a biblical commentary on the early life of Abraham. The commentary explains what happened to Abraham when he was a young boy working in his father's idol shop. The story has been used as a way to discuss monotheism and faith in general. Wikipedia

 

[super animator]

Thoughts?

My thoughts is that this mickey mouse needs to bring me up to speed cause I miss out regarding the gay cake thing.

 

[Quartermaine]

The way I see it's it's not really a case of discrimination, but his freedom to create or not create specific artwork. If the same person came to him to ask for a cake that isn't related to any transgender stuff, he'd probably make it. Like in the previous case, he simply doesn't want to bake a specific cake, he's not refusing to serve any specific person.

Imagine, for example, a painter, and someone comes to him and asks him to paint inappropriate content. Or something else that he doesn't really want to paint. Should the painter be forced by law to make any kind of painting that anyone asks him to make? Should he never be allowed to refuse any work?

your comparison doesn't work. Does the painter pain pron in the first place? No. To make you comparison work one would have to change the painter being asked to paint a portrait (something s/he does as part of their business but declining a customer saying he doesn't paint portraits of African Americans.

The baker here bakes cakes for everyone...except for a particular minority. If he didn't bake birthday cakes for anyone he would have a solid case for refusing this one individual...but he does make birthday cakes for just about anyone, even cakes of contrasting colors. it wasn't the cake he was refusing it was the person.

 

[pescador]

The way I see it's it's not really a case of discrimination, but his freedom to create or not create specific artwork. If the same person came to him to ask for a cake that isn't related to any transgender stuff, he'd probably make it. Like in the previous case, he simply doesn't want to bake a specific cake, he's not refusing to serve any specific person.

Imagine, for example, a painter, and someone comes to him and asks him to paint inappropriate content. Or something else that he doesn't really want to paint. Should the painter be forced by law to make any kind of painting that anyone asks him to make? Should he never be allowed to refuse any work?

Oy vey! If a business is open to the public then they must serve the public. The baker refused to serve the couple because of their sexual orientation; that's against the law.

Your example of an artist refusing to paint inappropriate content is really a stretch.

 

[chevyontheriver]

A Colorado Baker Is Fined For Refusing To Make A Cake For A Transgender Woman



That's right, folks... it's the same baker as last time.

Thoughts?

So, was it the denial of a birthday cake or the denial of a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday? There does seem to be a tiny difference.

 

[Yttrium]

Imagine, for example, a painter, and someone comes to him and asks him to paint inappropriate content. Or something else that he doesn't really want to paint. Should the painter be forced by law to make any kind of painting that anyone asks him to make? Should he never be allowed to refuse any work?

It's the equal protection thing. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 lists the protected categories. The painter can certainly choose not to paint inappropriate content, but he can't discriminate against customers based on race, sex, etc.

 

[Ignatius the Kiwi]

Keep on fighting Jack. Keep on winning.

 

[*Starlight*]

your comparison doesn't work. Does the painter pain pron in the first place? No. To make you comparison work one would have to change the painter being asked to paint a portrait (something s/he does as part of their business but declining a customer saying he doesn't paint portraits of African Americans.

The baker here bakes cakes for everyone...except for a particular minority. If he didn't bake birthday cakes for anyone he would have a solid case for refusing this one individual...but he does make birthday cakes for just about anyone, even cakes of contrasting colors. it wasn't the cake he was refusing it was the person.

I don't think there's any reason here to believe that he would refuse that person even if she wanted some totally different, unrelated cake.

As for my comparison, inappropriate content was just an example. Maybe the painter doesn't want to paint giraffes for some reason.

So if someone advertises as a painter, but never specifies what kind of paintings he makes, should he be legally forbidden from ever refusing any kind of work, no matter what someone asks him to do?