American baker Jack Phillips must be both the finest and the worst. We have never previously witnessed a cake baker with such a high demand being denounced in court for being such a bigot.
The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld an earlier district court decision last Thursday when it determined that Phillips had violated Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) by refusing to bake a cake for a person celebrating their transgender transition.
When will Jack Phillips be left alone by Colorado’s courts? Just as soon as he compromises his real religious convictions?
It is so clear that the purpose of this lawsuit is to set a bad example for religious people. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court’s first case Phillips won involving his specialized cake-baking company, was announced on the same day that an attorney celebrating transgender status called and asked for a custom cake from the now-famous custom cake baker. Phillips won that case.
I’m serious. In 2017, there were dozens of cake bakers in the Denver, Colorado, area, but only Jack Phillips could make Autumn Scardina’s cake, a pink cake with blue frosting. Scardina should be overjoyed; Phillips must be amazing.
Unfortunately, Scardina wasn’t interested in Phillips’ skill at baking cakes. He had strong religious convictions. When Phillips learned the cake’s message—or purpose—Scardina knew he would decline because the idea of celebrating a person’s gender fluidity runs counter to his Christian principles. Scardina filed a lawsuit, claiming he had broken the priceless CADA, and has now prevailed in court.
Phillips has now fought this and the previous case for ten years. If you are unable to convert them, you can beat them senseless in court.
In the appeals decision, the court effectively contends that under CADA, Phillips could be pressured to use his cake-baking to convey a message that goes against his religious views or face consequences.
The division comes to the conclusion that making a pink cake with blue frosting does not qualify as First Amendment-protected speech, according to the decision. Later, it was stated that “a proprietor’s right to freely exercise or express their religion is not violated by the CADA’s restriction against discrimination based on a person’s transgender status.” CADA is not supposed to be used as a tool against persons of faith; rather, it was created to defend groups that are vulnerable to prejudice. But is it?
Phillips said that the message sent by the cake’s intended usage to commemorate such status was the reason he declined to bake it for Scardina rather than her status. Given that gender identity and sexual orientation are now recognized by the law as protected classifications, it is simple to understand how the appeals court came to the conclusion that Phillips had engaged in discrimination. Status and behavior of transgender people cannot be distinguished.
Therefore, it is discriminatory to uphold the orthodox view that gender fluidity is in conflict with God’s creation or traditional religious traditions or belief systems. Traditional beliefs are not mentioned or taken into consideration.
However, no one should be compelled to convey a message within their firm that goes against their morals or religious convictions. Everyone should be affected by this. As of now, it appears to only apply to individuals who will only be content when those who hold traditional views give them up and replace them with their own.
Unluckily for Jack Phillips, that might mean another ten years of specific lawsuits like these. When will it be sufficient?