The Colorado baker who won a Supreme Court victory over his refusal to bake a gay wedding cake has been fighting the gender mafia for ten years. He is now forced to challenge a new ruling against him after he declined to bake a gender transition cake.
A transgender attorney sued Jack Phillips for refusing to fulfill her order. Autumn Scardina requested a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside. She wanted the cake to celebrate her gender transition on her birthday.
Phillips refused to make it because of its message, but a judge ruled last year that the case was about a refusal to sell a product, not compelled speech.
Baker’s lawyers are now challenging the ruling, which saw Phillips get a $500 fine.
Via the Daily Mail:
After receiving the ruling against him last year, Phillips’ legal representation said they would appeal the decision and accused Scardina, an attorney, of being an activist who set out to “test” the baker.
“In this case, an activist attorney demanded Jack create custom cakes in order to ”test” Jack and ”correct the errors” of his thinking, and the activist even threatened to sue Jack again if the case is dismissed for any reason,” ADF general counsel, Kristen Waggoner, said in a statement.
“Radical activists and government officials are targeting artists like Jack because they won’t promote messages on marriage and sexuality that violate their core convictions,” the statement added.
Ms. Waggoner said that the case “represents a disturbing trend: the weaponization of our justice system to ruin those with whom the activists disagree.”
Phillips famously won a partial Supreme Court victory in 2018 after he refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Big Tech can refuse innocent comments, but an owner of a private bakery can’t refuse to bake a cake with a message that is against his religion.
The queer “activists” need to be tested to see if they can hold their breath for 20 minutes under water. If so, they may have any cake they like.
The man will make any cake from his “book” of cakes but not engage in celebrating by making something unique for what he considers abhorant behaviors against his core belief or religion. He won previously and this is harassment, time to sue and make it hurt. The judge that allowed this travesty to go forward should be impeached.
Understand, the creeps went after this man hoping to make his life miserable!
Would a sane person ask a Jewish baker to make a cake celebrating the murder of 6 Million Jews?
They should be jailed for trying to illegally take the man’s livelihood from him. Where is “blind justice”?
At this time in this country’s history there are far too many $h*t House Lawyers!!!!!
When the case was first decided I certainly did not see it as a victory. This is the problem with so many SCOTUS decisions. They didn’t really decide on the “merits” of the case but only ruled on procedural grounds. Because of that non-decision I knew full well it would generate the same case again and here we are. Too often we see SCOTUS use punting techniques rather than step up and rule decisively. One can assume they are too scared to render decisions that are clear cut. It’s also why they only take cases on such narrow grounds. Cases brought on different Constitutional grounds are met with “standing” nonsense. As Robert Barnes rightly points out, there is NO “standing” clause in the Constitution. It was made up out of whole cloth for the simple reason to avoid getting involved in certain decisions. The Constitution actually disputes many of the “standing” claims made by SCOTUS.