COLORADO: State Supreme Court Rejects Appeal By Bakery That Refused To Serve Same-Sex Couple

Yet another loss for Alliance Defending Freedom. Via press release from the ACLU:

The Colorado State Supreme Court decided today to let stand an appellate court ruling that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination law when it refused to sell a same-sex couple a cake for their wedding reception.

“The highest court in Colorado today affirmed that no one should be turned away from a public-facing business because of who they are or who they love,” said Ria Tabacco Mar, staff attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union’s LGBT Project, who argued the case. “We all have a right to our personal beliefs, but we do not have a right to impose those beliefs on others and harm them. We hope today’s win will serve as a lesson for others that equality and fairness should be our guiding principles and that discrimination has no place at the table, or the bakery as the case may be.”

In 2012, Colorado residents David Mullins and Charlie Craig, along with Charlie’s mother Deborah Munn, visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a wedding cake. Mullins and Craig planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate with family and friends back home. Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips informed the couple that, because of his religious beliefs, it was his standard business practice to refuse to provide cakes to customers for same-sex weddings. Phillips has turned away several other couples for the same reason.

Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits businesses, such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors including race, sex, national origin, or sexual orientation. The American Civil Liberties Union and the ACLU of Colorado filed suit on behalf of Mullins and Craig in 2013. In December 2013, an administrative judge ruled that the bakery had illegally discriminated against the couple. In 2014, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission affirmed that ruling. Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed. In a unanimous decision issued on August 15, 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the bakery unlawfully discriminated against David Mullins and Charlie Craig by refusing to sell them a cake for their wedding reception.

When businesses and other institutions that serve the public have sought exemptions to laws barring discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, the courts have held that businesses are required to comply with anti-discrimination laws. The courts have ruled without regard to whether LGBT people could have obtained the goods or service elsewhere. Instead the courts have recognized the harm to equal opportunity if lesbian and gay people can be turned away from businesses otherwise open to the public because of who they are.

  • Tigernan Quinn

    Time to move your business to one of those states that allow this – of course, then you’ll be making cakes for the worst people alive, but you’ve got to have principles.

    • Soren456

      And get cash in advance.

      • Snarkaholic

        Those cheap creeps will do/say anything to avoid paying or to get their money back.
        I once worked in a (casino) restaurant where an asshole customer said she found a hair in her pizza. The hair was long and red (just like her own hair(!), while every one of us cooks had short, dark hair. Fortunately, the manager refused to refund her money (which she would have just wasted in the slot machines anyway).

  • Natty Enquirer

    When will these people understand that they are running businesses, not churches, and have to obey the law?

    • Larry Gist

      Maybe when they stop listening to the likes of Mat Staver…

      • CanuckDon

        ….and the voices in their heads.

      • D. J.

        Or “accidentally” get their head blown off by Anita Staver and new owners take over.

    • customartist

      I learned this in about the 5th grade. Why did others not lean this simple lesson?

      • Michael Abbett

        Some of them never went past 5th grade.

    • coram nobis

      When did Cheeses of Nazareth ever say, “Blessed are the cake-makers?”

      • BobSF_94117

        Mmmmmmm goat cheese (I assume).

      • Steve Teeter

        When I was in Rome in 2000 at the weekly papal audience in St. Peter’s Square. JPII was saying a special prayer honoring Italy’s pizza makers. True.

        • coram nobis

          That’s interesting, both considering the event itself and also the fact that the tomato didn’t make its way from the Americas until the 16th Century or so. Some Eternal Truths tend to be very recent in origin, it seems.

          • wayne

            I’ve often wondered what Italian cuisine was like pre-tomato.

          • Cheryl Washer

            It is the basis of current French cuisine. Catherine de Medici brought Florentine cooks with her when she married the French king in pre-tomato times.

          • coram nobis

            Pasta also seems to have come by way of Marco Polo, or at least in the dried form we know today. They did seem to have pesto as far back as Roman times however.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        Ha! Good Python reference, coram nobis! “Blessèd are the cheese-makers”

      • fuzzybits

        May the fondant be with you.

    • BlueberriesForMe

      Never. They only “obey” “god’s” “law”.

      • StSean

        Doesn’t Paul tell Christians to obey te government because God put them in charge? Weird how that’s never brought up, like stoning adulterers to death in a country where Ashley Madison exists.

  • oikos
  • Ha ha! If you are granted a license to do business with the public then you are required to do business with ALL the public, not those you pick and choose.

    • Blake Jordan

      Doing business in non-discrimination states is not like the bible, in which you can cherry pick which verse inconvenience you the least…

  • Chucktech

    So, what now, christian baker schmuck?

    • oikos

      Lieberty counsel will save them! Not.

  • Acronym Jim

    A business should be allowed to decide who they do business with. It’s only fair.

    • Larry Gist

      I dearly hope that was sarcasm…

      • Gustav2

        No, it isn’t

      • Acronym Jim

        It’s a fake account impersonating me.

    • oikos

      Did you leave the /s off your comment?

      • Bad Tom

        Sadly, no.

      • Acronym Jim

        That’s not me.

        • oikos

          Report it to disqus as an impersonator.

          • Acronym Jim

            Done.

        • Bad Tom

          I knew it wasn’t you. A handful of comments, and no upvotes at all.

    • Friday

      If you decide to do business with the public, you don’t get to start excluding people from ‘the public’ for not obeying your religious demands. If you want to do business with a select clientele then don’t use a public accommodation business model.

    • Dinz6315

      It’s only FAIR?!?

    • Gustav2

      A business is open to all the public or it is a private club.

      • Acronym Jim

        Somebody is impersonating me. Y’all know me better than that.

        • oikos

          It only has 11 comments so I know it is not you.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            Stop writing my thoughts before I can post them !

        • Ragnar Lothbrok

          Yep, I could tell by the 11 comments

        • Gustav2

          They have done it before.

        • Friday

          I’d thought it was you being semi-ironical. 🙂

          • Acronym Jim

            I either go full irony or not at all. 🙂

    • customartist

      Woolworth’s Lunch Counter should be able to refuse African Americans?

    • Ragnar Lothbrok

      My ambulance service should just be able to drive by after you get hit by a bus ??

    • DaveW

      I restore homes and don’t like selling my babies to assholes. But I can’t discriminate. I make a choice if I have one but usually have to take whoever’s money is green.

      No, a business can’t choose their customers. If they want to have customers self select, like this asshole, people can choose not to do business with him

      Just like bars. High cover or dress code is ok “no gang types” is not. Here in my town all good places have closed because of this. If we have to be fair to gangbangers….

      • Ragnar Lothbrok

        For a second there, I thought you were selling babies.
        I was going to ask for a discount.

        • oikos

          𝘔𝘺 𝘳𝘰𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦’𝘴 𝘴𝘵𝘦𝘱 𝘢𝘶𝘯𝘵’𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘜𝘯𝘤𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘳𝘳𝘪𝘢𝘨𝘦 𝘨𝘦𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘢𝘪𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘪𝘯𝘢𝘳𝘺 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘗𝘗. 𝘏𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 $1562.39 𝘱𝘦𝘳 𝘩𝘰𝘶𝘳 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘢𝘣𝘺 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘴 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘢𝘭𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘬. 𝘏𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩𝘵 𝘢 𝘯𝘦𝘸 𝘳𝘢𝘻𝘰𝘳 𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘳 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘴. 𝘊𝘭𝘪𝘤𝘬 𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘯 𝘩𝘰𝘸: 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝘁𝘆𝗯𝗮𝗯𝘆𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁𝘀𝗳𝗼𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗹𝗲.𝗰𝗼𝗺

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            You seem to know a bit too much about your roommates’
            extended family.

            That said, I want in on this.

          • PickyPecker
          • oikos

            Truth in labeling is ever so important to make good choices.

          • coram nobis

            And this is a good time to present Mr. Jonathan Swift, with A Modest Proposal.

            http://www.art-bin.com/art/omodest.html

          • Reality.Bites

            I call fake. Why didn’t he buy a new car?

          • oikos

            The local BMW dealership was out of BMWs.

          • Thrift, you can get a great used BMW cheap.

          • Ragnar Lothbrok

            $ 1562.37 / hour. It doesn’t say how many hours.

          • Acronym Jim

            He didn’t have a driver’s license.

          • agcons

            Roommate Mary, or her mother, or her aunt, or her roommate’s mother’s aunt, purchased all the McLarens.

      • Snarkaholic

        When doing work for these bigots, you could (quietly) add on a ‘Fuckhead Fee’, an extra hundred (or any amount you choose) dollars…which, upon payment from said fuckheads, you could donate to a worthy charity (such as the Ali Forney center).

      • Acronym Jim

        That’s a fake account. As you can see from my real avatar, I’m much cuter.

    • LovesIrony

      Jim Crow, is that you?

      • Acronym Jim

        Nope. It’s fake AcronymJim.

    • Giant Monster Gamera

      It’s only fair.

      • BobSF_94117

        But he’s on a medical leave. The rest of us are driving him crazy…

      • Reality.Bites

        Oddest grocery order ever.

      • coram nobis

        A good demonstration on why we need an interstate commerce clause, at least an illustration of how infringement of trade works.

    • oikos

      ..

    • PickyPecker

      ..

      • Acronym Jim

        Pickypecker, you know me better than to assume I would ever post something so stupid. It’s an impersonator.

        • PickyPecker

          Just not sure what ‘thrill’ trolls like that get out of impersonating people.

    • oikos

      Flag this for impersonation. Joe this is an impersonated account.

      • Acronym Jim

        Flagged and reported to Joe.

        • oikos

          You can report it to disqus as impersonation as well.

          • Acronym Jim

            Done and done.

    • Acronym Jim

      I never thought I would give a downvote to my own user-nym.

      Faker.

      • click his name and on the righthand side top there is a flag to report him to disqus.

    • Acronym Jim

      Flagged and account impersonation reported to Disqus and Joe.

  • barracks9

    Yup.

  • Rex

    Boom.

  • fastlanestranger

    This sounds like a job for…..LIBERTY COUNSEL…EL…EL…EL…el…el…el…l…l…l

  • oikos

    Cries of woe and oppression to follow. This will be counted as another example of ‘christian persecution’ even though they’ve already counted it two or three times.

  • Paula

    I am sure that this won’t be the end of it.

    • Blake Jordan

      Who is paying all these legal fees for the baker?

    • Phillip in L.A.

      It ain’t over ’til the haterz pay the piper, which they may refuse to do. It would be foolish, but they may still do it.

  • DaveW

    A strait male cake baker. Hmm. This has zero to do with religion. Baking and selling a cake is not a religious activity. So either he is a bigot and won’t serve gays or he is afraid to see non self hating gays accept themselves……and uses bigotry to shield his true issue

    Bottom line, bigotn(with that typical bad Christian hair!)

  • customartist

    Religion was used as the basis for discriminating against those persons who committed “mixing of the races” as well

  • i still can’t understand these people. i’ve been in business, small business. it’s hard! every sale, every dollar, every customer is precious. i’m pretty sure we sold to a Klan type, way back in the day when i worked at my black grandfather’s business. Grandpa took that money with a smile.

    if you want to be in the business of judging people, open a church, not a store. churches are more profitable, also! and none of that pesky anti-discrimination legislation can touch your hate, while you’re inside of one.

    • tcinsf

      I once represented the Family Radio Station network in a case that had nothing to do with their core beliefs. Hardest part was that their station was their “hold” music, so when I called to discuss something with my client I got to listen to someone railing about something. when it was homos, the subsequent conversation was often icy. Regardless, they were well defended and the matter resolved. Preferred representing Williams of Sonoma. They’re kinda awesome.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        That must have been very difficult, tcinsf! I did similar deeds in my law-firm days, although no prosletyzing (even by way of hold-music) was ever attempted.

        When you’re a hired gun, you go where asked, and do the job, as we both did!

        • tcinsf

          Yeah, it’s sometimes hard to explain to non-lawyers that the devil deserves representation in our system.
          That was not even the hardest case I ever had. That honor goes to the day the partners walked into my office once and dumped one of the Catholic child abuse cases on my desk. Celebrity attorney on the other side. Reaction was instantaneous and negative. Three words, two of them were “oh” and “no.” Middle word was not “hell.” Response was look it over, and see what we can do with it.

          Turns out, we weren’t representing the Diocese or the priest, only a very tangential defendant that really had nothing to do with the abuse, so I could in good conscience handle the case. And did. And I got my client out and it’s over.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Thx for posting, tcinsf–great story!

    • exactly, exactly, exactly.
      remember i used to sell cars. do you think i’d ever turn away a paying customer? (or afford to?). absolutely not!
      in a previous life, i waited tables…again, do you think i could turn away paying customers?

      • if i told you some of the people i’ve waited on, some of the most vile scum on the earth… they were poor tippers but i still took their fucking money. i even spent some of it on stuff they would’ve been appalled to know about- radical political candidates, fun drugz, gay bars…

        take the money, folks. every time. just take and if it’s really ugly or blood soaked, give it to charity. money doesn’t care how it is used. use it for good.

        • tcinsf

          Waiting tables is the one hellish job I never had. Worked in fast-food, but never had the joy of waiting.

      • Reality.Bites

        In my previous life I was Cleopatra. You’re kinda dull, Ed. 😉

        • ouch.

          • RaygunsGoZap

            Don’t let it hurt you, bro. I was the asp! 😉

          • Reality.Bites

            Please don’t take it personally, Ed. It was a riff on the fact that all the people who claim to have had past lives were someone extraordinary in them. They were never a pig farmer or lived in a hut with a dirt floor.

          • No offense taken.
            I can also report that in that previous left, I was a cocksucker. In all previous lives in fact. Present life too.

        • Phillip in L.A.

          Perhaps Ed has had other, more fabulous lives as well?

        • Craig Howell

          OK, Cleo: Julius Caesar or Marc Antony–who was hung better? The world wonders!

          • Mark

            Marc Antony! I saw it on TV.

      • CPT_Doom

        And it applies in other ways. I had to go to OK last week for business. I sure as hell didn’t want to go to deep red fundie land, but when my company took the contract with HHS, we agreed to do trainings wherever the agency wanted. People in OK deserve health care as well, so I went and pretended not to be offended by the anti-trans sh*t some if them spewed.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      “open a church, not a store. churches are more profitable”

      Especially given the property-tax exemption!

    • Buford

      To be clear, it’s fine for business owners to judge whomever they want for whatever reason they want in whatever fashion they want… just as long as they sell them their equitably-offered goods or services.

    • fuzzybits

      Just like I say about the Harriet Tubman 20’s. If they don’t want them or won’t accept them they can send em to me!

    • marshlc

      I’d actually have some small measure of, oh, call it ‘respect’ for them, if they were consistent in their actions. If they had a history of not selling to people remarrying after divorce, for example, or to anyone known to have had an affair.

      It would still be illegal and they should still not get away with it, but at least it would have internal consistency. As it is, though, it’s just one huge pile of bullshit. They’re not acting on sincerely held religious beliefs, because if they were, they’d turn away other sinners, too, not just this one specific subset.

  • anne marie in philly

    YAYZ! stupid asswipe! time to put up or shut up, mofo!

  • Tigernan Quinn

    They’ve scrubbed all of their negative reviews – their google reviews are nothing but glowing.

    • customartist

      So essentially, Google has no cred

      • Christopher Smith

        Has had no cred. For years. Remember China?

  • PickyPecker
  • Paula

    You don’t want to bake the cake? Change the name to something like the jeebusy house of gawd for x-tian only, dry cake baking church of pastry worship. I think the Geyz will stay out then. Who’d want a cake from there? Yuk!

    • Crosses and garlic everywhere on the store front.

      Oh, wait that’s for blood-suckering vampires, nevermind.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Jeebus’s Cake-Baking Ministry of Day-Old Dryness

  • KQCA

    They didn’t hit the market while the topic was hot. Ya have to be quick these days.

  • [email protected]

    these cases are easy, it is not “participation” in a wedding to provide a business service and religious beliefs are not an excuse to disregard the law and discriminate.

    • Soren456

      Religious dogma is not public policy.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      That is a good point, [email protected]! That may be why the Colorado Supreme Court refused to hear the case–the Court of Appeal got it right, and the Supremes figured, “Eh–let it ride”

  • customartist

    I don’t want to sell surgical knives because they will be used to perform circumcisions. That’s my religious belief.

  • coram nobis

    You take the denarii, you render under Caesar. Interstate commerce and all that.

    … As to the Commerce Clause, the court found that it was “an express grant of power to Congress to regulate interstate commerce, which consists of the movement of persons, goods or information from one state to another,” and it found that the clause was also a grant of power “to regulate intrastate activities, but only to the extent that action on its part is necessary or appropriate to the effective execution of its expressly granted power to regulate interstate commerce.”
    * * *
    In the 12 months preceding the passage of the Act, the restaurant purchased locally approximately $150,000 worth of food, $69,683 or 46% of which was meat that it bought from a local supplier who had procured it from outside the State. The District Court expressly found that a substantial portion of the food served in the restaurant had moved in interstate commerce …
    * * *
    The Government has contended that Congress had ample basis upon which to find that racial discrimination at restaurants which receive from out of state a substantial portion of the food served does, in fact, impose commercial burdens of national magnitude upon interstate commerce. …
    * * *
    The record is replete with testimony of the burdens placed on interstate commerce by racial discrimination in restaurants. A comparison of per capita spending by Negroes in restaurants, theaters, and like establishments indicated less spending, after discounting income differences, in areas where discrimination is widely practiced. … The fewer customers a restaurant enjoys, the less food it sells, and consequently the less it buys. … In addition, the Attorney General testified that this type of discrimination imposed “an artificial restriction on the market,” and interfered with the flow of merchandise.
    — Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294, 296-300 (1964)

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Interesting, coram nobis. This case obviously was decided before the Civil Rights Act was enacted (based on the date). Still, I was wondering why Section 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t argued here? Congress has virtually plenary power under that clause.

      Yet Roberts, C.J., has opined that the Affordable Care Act can only stand upon Congress’ Taxation power–go figure!

      • GC

        All the more reason that the presidential election, and thus the next few Supreme Court appointments, are so crucial!

      • FredDorner

        Actually that case is about “Ollie’s Barbecue”, and it specifically upheld the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

        • Phillip in L.A.

          It upheld the 1964 Act in a case decided in 1964? How quaint! I need to review the case–I still don’t understand why Congress would rely on the Commerce Clause to pass the Civil Rights Act when Amendment XIV basically grants carte blanche

          • coram nobis

            13th and 14th Am. case law may not have been as clear in 1964 (or during the JFK administration, when the law was floated), and Title II of the Act relied on the Commerce Clause. Heart of Atlanta Motel does come up in some Con. Law curricula.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Yes, Title II was definitely based on the Commerce Clause, which I didn’t know. I was reading up on this a bit, and am a little surprised that 14th Amendment case-law is as incoherent as it is. Thx for your posts, coram nobis–I learned a bunch of new stuff!

          • coram nobis

            The Commerce Clause, and the “dormant” case law, seems to have played a big role in the country’s growth. (See, e.g., Southern Pacific Company v. Arizona, 325 U.S. 761 (1945), which I did encounter in law school). It helps if you can get canals and railroads built across state lines with no hassles — just by comparison, Australia started as separate colonies, so even when Mark Twain was on his lecture tour there in the 1890s, every state still had customs sheds — and different railroad gauges.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_Pacific_Co._v._Arizona

        • Phillip in L.A.

          Correct, FredDorner. Thx for pointing this out.

      • coram nobis

        Congress relied on the enforcement part of the Commerce Clause, and decided both this case and Heart of Atlanta Motel at the same time, they’re still valid case law and taught in law school. Congress can’t always do that — they tried to use the Commerce Clause to ban sexual harassment and the Court struck it down. It’s still worth trying.

        More to the point, there’s a Dormant Commerce Clause doctrine that could trigger if any state passes an RFRA that would implicate the doing of business. The principle is simple enough: the country grew because states couldn’t block commerce with customs laws or restrictions on railroads and such. Perhaps some clever plaintiff could invoke some form of an interstate commerce argument.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dormant_Commerce_Clause

        • Phillip in L.A.

          Agreed, coram nobis–great post, thx! I learned a lot.

          Now, since at least three Justices believe Congress did not have power under the Commerce Clause to enact the Affordable Care Act, and four Justices (including Kennedy) apparently are uncomfortable with the varying “levels of scrutiny” of Equal Protection doctrine, I wonder where constitutional jurisprudence in the civil rights arena will go. Privileges and Immunities Clause of Amendment XIV???

          • coram nobis

            14th Am. has the Privileges or Immunities Clause, largely invalidated in the Slaughterhouse Cases. (They used to tell me that if you see “privileges or immunities clause” on a multi-choice law exam, it’s a wrong answer.) And yes, it would be good to see it revived in some future ruling.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Yes, but Slaughterhouse Cases is an ancient 5-4 decision, musty, and makes no sense (at least as “traditionally” described).(*) Agreed, Privileges or Immunities Clause should be revived–it seems much more logical than “substantive due process”

            (*) Reading the Slaughterhouse Cases as a 1L, I then and there decided the whole law thing was just a manipulative game.

          • coram nobis

            Musty, but no more so than other rulings from the period like ex parte Milligan or The Paquete Habana, which are also case law with validity today. But the framers of the 14th Am. do seem to have thought that the privileges or immunities of U.S. citizens should get some respect, so it’s worth a new review, yes.

  • Porkie

    If “Masterpiece” cake shop doesn’t want to provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples the answer is simple – don’t make fucking wedding cakes! Rocket science it ain’t .
    …..Still if you want to have your cake …..

  • FredDorner

    No surprise at all that Jack Phillips is a Southern Baptist, a cult literally founded on hate and the notion that some persons should be treated as 2nd-class citizens.

    The bigoted florist in Washington (Baronelle Stutzman) is a Southern Baptist as well, and I think that’s also true of the bigoted owners of the “Sweet Cakes by Melissa” bakery in Oregon.

    • Paige Turner

      Melissa also had her bank account garnished because of failure to pay the department of labour.

      She’s not much of a business person.

  • JaniceInToronto

    Seems like one cannot post a review of these bigots at Google. Turned off reviews?

  • FredDorner

    If Jack Phillips wants to continue to discriminate against the people he hates then he’s free to run his business as a private members-only club. That way he can deny service to all the traditional groups which his nutty Southern Baptist cult hates….gays, blacks, Jews, women, etc.

  • Rocketeer500

    Now the only option is the Supreme Court. I hope, I hope, I hope…….

    • nope. this is the end of the road (as i understand it).
      this was a state issue, and when the CSC declined to take the case, that’s it. game over.

      • Phillip in L.A.

        You are right, Ed Burrow–game over!

        There is a federal issue here, but it’s already been decided against them. Hobby Lobby (2014) 573 U.S.___ does not apply; the federal RFRA cannot be applied against the States (City of Boerne v. Flores (1997) 521 U.S. 507); and Smith v. EDD (1990) 494 U.S. 872.

    • Reality.Bites

      I can’t imagine they’d take it. It’s state law, no one’s rights are being violated by the state, there aren’t cases that have gone the other way, etc.

      • FredDorner

        In fact SCOTUS recently declined to review the Elane Photography case from NM and that case arguably had a far better argument than Jack Phillips has.

        IIRC, no court has ever failed to support public accommodations laws.

        • Phillip in L.A.

          “the Elane Photography case from NM and that case arguably had a far better argument than Jack Phillips has”

          You mean because New Mexico has enacted a State RFRA, right, FredDorner? I was not aware that the US Supreme Court denied cert in that case–thx for the info!

          • Reality.Bites

            Perhaps Fred meant because a photographer actually does participate in a wedding at the event and documents it?

            When you bake a cake, your involvement ends when it leaves the store. If the people eat it, fuck it, drop a deuce on it, drop it out a second-storey window to see how it looks smashed on their driveway, you never have to know or think about it.

            I have a Samsung TV. Does the person who inspected the LCD panel before it left the factory devote any thought to whether I’m watching gay porn or the 700 club on it?

          • Phillip in L.A.

            Oh, whether photography is “expressive speech”

          • It’s work for hire. The chances for “expressive speech” are severely limited: you make the pictures the client wants.

          • Phillip in L.A.

            The point was that some courts (including the NM Supreme Court and the CO Court of Appeals) see a First Amendment issue lurking in photography that they don’t apparently see in, e.g., renting a hall or baking a cake. It doesn’t mean it’s a winning argument–just that it’s there

          • Phillip in L.A.

            I don’t recall any of the cases specifically discussing this aspect of the dispute, but you may well be right, Reality.Bites

        • coram nobis

          A photographer or such might have a case of s/he can show that it’s a matter of being an employee rather than providing a service, since employment can’t be compulsory. But it’s iffy.

  • Jean-Marc in Canada

    And now a reading from “The Book of Hunky Jesus and His Latter Day Go Go Boys”©

    P.S. Yes, it’s the name of the book I’m writing……and yes, this is an actual passage from it 🙂

    • Acronym Jim

      1st “IML” Judges?

      “I’m My Law?”

      • Jean-Marc in Canada

        Int’l Man of Leather 🙂

  • StraightGrandmother

    This is good, great news.
    Jack Phillips’ brother (or it might have been brother in law) started a GoFundMe, except the GoFundMe had to be moved as GoFundMe shut down solicitations for people who are breaking the law. They calculated it out and they figured that Jack the Baker needed $300,000 in order to make up for his loss of business because he stopped baking wedding cakes altogether. They got just right around $30,000. I watched that fund drive for quite a while. I knew these GoFundMe contributions because I simply MUST discriminate against people who are gay, were going to dry up.

    Those Pizza People in Indiana were the high tide, they made out like bandits, didn’t they get like close to a million dollars in contributions? Poor widdle Jack Phillips in Colorado only pulled in 30K. I’m thrilled with this ruling, it sets a good example to others who might think they can disobey the laws.

    • Phillip in L.A.

      Do you know how much the Colorado bakery got fined, StraightGrandmother? On top of their legal fees, they’ve got to pay the award from the CO Human Rights Commission/ALJ

  • Snarkaholic

    No cap.
    No beard guard.
    NO GLOVES!

    • rabbit_ears

      No service!

    • Robincho

      For Jackshit Phillips, today’s beard is tomorrow’s prison-pussy…

    • Octavio

      His hairy cup cakes are world renown.

  • MBear

    You have a right to personal beliefs, but sometimes those beliefs are wrong. Period. Wrong wrong wrong. And not when it comes to laws…just emphatically, positively, grossly, objectively, morally, and ethically wrong.

    • Friday

      There’s kind of a boundaries issue there, too, you can have your personal beliefs, but if you’re trying to say, ‘My sincerely held religious belief is that Christians want to fuck goats, so they should be banned from owning real estate in case someone doesn’t want to sell them a farm…’ Well, that’s beyond the purview of anyone’s ‘personal beliefs’ and on into trying to enforce that view on others.

  • Ninja0980

    This isn’t about a cake, it’s about a guy wanting a pass on being able to serve LGBT customers despite discrimination laws saying he can’t.
    If he was given a pass, then everyone would want one and the law would be useless.
    Bottom line, never give a bigot a pass, period.

    • Friday

      It’s only about cakes to the people who want to deny all civil rights to LGBT people, plain and simple,.

  • Mark McGovern

    I once had a client whose lawyer hired me to complete litigation reports on his behalf. Upon interviewing him, for some reason he felt compelled to advise me that he hated gay people and that in his view, he would be happy to cut off their heads and stuff them down their necks. I moved him away from the topic, and took extra care to complete his assessment as professionally and as expertly as I could. As a professional, I recognized that I wasn’t there to have my neck fucked with my severed head, just as dough-head baker boy wasn’t asked to suck the newly married guys’ dicks. He was asked to bake a cake.

    So…. please, it’s a cake, not a Federal Case. Bake it. And bake it good dough boy.

    • David From Canada

      I would have seriously considered reporting the lawyer’s vicious outburst to the police. Such a person is dangerous and needs to be dealt with by the law.
      There’s a big difference between not baking a cake, and threatening to kill someone in a horrific manner.

      • Mark McGovern

        It wasn’t the lawyer, it was the client. It was not a threat, just a view point, wherein the individual was clearly not seriously considering doing such a thing.

        • Christopher Smith

          You’re a lawyer. you understand that words have consequences. To allow such poison to go unrefuted and unpunished by social sanctions, lol, is further to enable the utterly uncivil society in which we now live.

          • Mark McGovern

            Well that’s not entirely true. I am not a lawyer, I was a consultant hired by a lawyer to develop a vocational plan and assess income losses for this individual who was severely injured in a car accident. I was not at liberty to discuss what he said to me, as there was a confidential relationship. My option would have been to deny him service, which I decided not to do; probably as I was a lot younger, and less confident in terms of my profession. Believe me, I would handle it differently today, but it still would not be punitively, as I do not believe what he said represented his true feelings – he was an injured bitter person who had lost a considerable component of functional ability due to someone else’s negligence. So there was a lot of stuff going on – but psychological counselling was not my mandate. My point is, and perhaps at the end of the day it is a bad example, that I did not make a decision of service provision based upon his social perspectives. He didn’t like gay people. I was gay and providing high quality services that, frankly, he couldn’t easily have replaced. I chose not to deny him service based upon that view point. If the same situation occurred today, I would simply tell him that I was gay, inform him of how inappropriate and offensive his behavior was, make it a teachable moment, and move forward on the basis that I was gay, did he want to work with me or not? I would not decline services on the basis of his view on LGBT, unless of course it was my impression that he actually intended harm to others, which I do not believe to be the case. .

    • jmax

      You’re a better man than I.
      But I’m so stealing the neck-fucked-with-my-severed-head line. There are some people at work I could seriously scare with that one 🙂

      • Mark McGovern

        LOL please no need to steal -I gift it to you.

    • MickinDetroit

      on the flip side of that… would you want to eat anything that someone was compelled by law to prepare for you after they espoused those views?

      • Mark McGovern

        Absolutely not. The problem is that it’s really not about cake, is it? It’s really about provision of services. So if the only physician in a small town is anti-gay, the only choice for local gay boys may be that physician. My point in the story is that I expect those in the marketplace to provide services to everybody, and in turn I will provide services to everybody. If those rules were to be not applicable, or if there was no hope they would be applicable, then I would have told the client to find somebody else. I might also have bitched slapped him. But the fact is I offer services in the marketplace. While this example is rather extreme, I know for a fact I have served many people who are anti-LGBT; just as anybody in the marketplace, save maybe those having shops in Provincetown or something, have done.

        • MickinDetroit

          no I get that, I guess what I’m thinking out loud that this isn’t 1950… there are literally infinite options for the procurement of goods and services accessible by anyone with a smartphone in the vast majority of communities (I think the gay boys in a one horse town might be an outlier)

          I’m wondering if requiring bigots to post signage regarding whom their mythology allows them to serve might accomplish the same goals? Here in Michigan it’s totally legal to refuse service or outright fire someone for being gay. (curiously no governor or company is boycotting Michigan or baring travel to it though…) Recently a local doctor turned away lesbian mothers because of their lesbianism….the doctor was destroyed by public media by it. What these people want is to be bigots and hide that from the market who might not patronize them if they knew the bigotry being practiced.

          Call me petty, I WANT the ability to throw these people out of my office for their views and I want to tell them why I’m doing it –and I’ve come across more than I care to discuss from people I thought better of… I’m former military and people make assumptions about my sexuality based on that and feel free to speak openly about their “opinions” before I educate them.leads to some funny….we’ll you’re one of the “normal ones” backpedaling (which isn’t any less insulting). I want to be able to say :” Fuck you and your retrograde bigotry, get the fuck out of here, we don’t serve your kind here”. I feel swallowing that and servicing their issues is a bit too obsequious. But instead of telling them why i’m not taking them on, I just make up a reason or a conflict that precludes me from assisting. Which of course all these people could do, but they choose to be martyrs for their “cause”.

    • Porkie

      Up-vote for your consummate professionalism – You are a better man than I.

  • TheManicMechanic

    BOOM.

  • Octavio

    Even though it appears justice is being served I want the baker to go bust, his marriage to break up and his kids — well, his kids to grow up sane and good citizens.

  • Let them eat caque!

  • Tempus Fuggit

    Yet another loss for Alliance Defending Freedom

    Actual, real law firms occasionally win their cases. Obviously this is a front. Can we stop playing along with the pretense?

    • SFBruce

      Real law firms also try to provide decent legal advice to their clients, instead of leading them on to pursue the lawyers’ personal agenda.

  • bob

    I can only hope that these religious liberty and bathroom laws go the same direction.

  • David Walker

    Bend over, sweet face. The Law has something for you.

  • djcoastermark

    One small step, but a good one. With all the crap the righties have been throwing, this is a bit of good news today. Hoping the winning streak goes on !

  • David From Canada

    These bakery bigots are getting to be so boring. They need to get on with their life and get a job where they don’t work with the public.

  • jomicur

    When are these clucks going to start dealing with obvious facts and throw in the towel? As W.C. Fields once put it, “Sometimes you just have to take the bull by the tail and face the situation.”

  • Phillip in L.A.

    Apparently, no damages were awarded in this case; the Colorado Human Rights Commission issued an Order requiring Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., and Phillips, to refrain from violating the law, and to file recurring reports with the Commission.

    The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed (2015COA115, Aug. 18, 2015); the Colorado Supreme Court denied review (No. 15SC738, April 26, 2016, en banc); see https://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/Case_Announcements/Files/2016/058A3EAPRIL.25.16.pdf

    Notwithstanding technical upgrades from the CO judiciary, their website is still very difficult to search, and NOT user-friendly.

  • fuzzybits
    • Porkie

      The scoundrels!

      • fuzzybits

        😛😛😛

  • Brian Moore

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tDDAa1If-u4

    Some times SNL hits the nail right on the head.

  • Mike in Texas

    How “sincerely held” are the religious beliefs of those unwilling to make a sacrifice for their chosen religion?

  • 2karmanot

    Bake yer hate and eat it too

  • Rrhain

    To Masterpiece Cakeshop: Due to our sincerely held Constitutional beliefs, it is our standard citizen practice to sue those who engage in discriminatory behaviour. I hope you realize that this is nothing personal. We don’t hate those who engage in bigotry, but out personal standards of public behaviour require us to engage in our civic duty.

  • David in Palm Springs

    I’d really like to ask Mr. Phillips why he doesn’t apply his Deeply Held Religious Beliefs™ to any of his straight customers. Why do all of his immoral and sinful straight customers get a free pass? Why doesn’t he have an issue making a wedding cake for a straight couple that are on their 5th marriage? I’d also like to know why he isn’t personally endorsing Judaism if he bakes a cake for a bat mitzvah? But he IS personally endorsing an “immoral event” if he bakes a wedding cake for a gay couple.

    • billbear1961

      Exactly–I’ve said this again and again and again: no one ELSE has to pass a goddamned religious morality test–only WE do, of course!!

      It’s pure HYPOCRISY–unadulterated BULLSHIT!!

      And I’m SICK to DEATH of it!!

  • Gianni

    It’s fortunate that Colorado includes “sexual orientation” in the protected categories of their Anti-discrimination Law or else this would have gone the other way.

  • Gordon.

    The point isn’t that a same sex couple could go somewhere else to have their cake made. The point is that they shouldn’t have to. Sad that businesses have to be forced to do the right thing.

  • coram nobis

    Keep your half-baked cake: instead, dedicated to Billbear, this little march instead, something I insisted having played at my wedding.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PzsyZR6Jt4

    • Claude Jacques Bonhomme

      Quite sprightly and gay.

    • billbear1961

      A little bird told me about this!

      😀

  • Genevievergibson3

    “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc156ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc156:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsAuthorityGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc156……..

    • Claude Jacques Bonhomme

      Jack Phillips… can’t sell hate cake anymore? This new gig won’t work here. Try Breitbart or World Nut Daily, why don’t you?

    • billbear1961

      Flagged, Jack Phillips, disciple of HATE!

  • Claude Jacques Bonhomme

    I’d rather have Rocky and Balls bake me a Love Cake.
    https://youtu.be/c38W5YQ5PdQ?t=17s
    It beats hate cake any day.

  • billbear1961

    A rose for the altar of JUSTICE–and a musical offering to the glory of her MAJESTY!

    http://s1.bwallpapers.com/wallpapers/2014/01/20/blue-rose_110658780.jpg

    https://youtu.be/1MwmzYmDO4g?t=6s

  • How would they side with the bigot bakers without taking down all public accommodations law?

  • Marti386

    There. Now bake the damn cake.

  • JCF

    Hater,

  • Mildred Peterson

    “my room mate Mary Is getting paid on the internet 98$/hr”..,……..!wc249ctwo days ago grey MacLaren P1 I bought after earning 18,512 DoIIars..it was my previous month’s payout..just a little over.17k DoIIars Last month..3-5 hours job a day…with weekly payouts..it’s realy the simplest. job I have ever Do.. I Joined This 7 months. ago. and now making over. hourly 87 DoIIars…Learn. More right Here !wc249:➽:➽:➽➽➽➽ http://GlobalSuperJobsReportsEmploymentsLifeGetPayHourly$98…. .❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖..:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦:❖❖:❦❦::::::!wc249……..