• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner in court again for denying LGBTQ customer

Michael Johnson

Libturd Destroyer
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 29, 2012
Messages
5,818
Reaction score
924
Location
Hell's Kitchen - Where I cook Lying Libs for break
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Very Conservative
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is in court again, this time over allegations that his business unlawfully refused service to a transgender woman who requested trans-themed birthday cake. The plaintiff, Autumn Scardina, had*previously filed a complaint against Phillips*with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and is now in the midst of a lawsuit at the district level.

Both actions stem from a call Scardina says she made to the Lakewood, Colorado, bakery on June 26, 2017 — the same day the Supreme Court announced it would take up a separate case involving Masterpiece Cakeshop’s refusal to make a same-sex wedding cake. Scardina, an attorney and activist, says she tried to order a pink cake with blue frosting, but that the bakery refused her request after she explained it was intended to recognize her identity as a transgender woman, according to court documents. She alleges that a representative of the Christian bakery told her it “did not make cakes for ‘sex changes.’”

This scum just won't quit until it destroys a hardworking man who built his business from ground up. The negative power of Libs. There needs to be a federal law that disallows repetitive lawsuits of the same issue. Mr. Phillips should countersue for religious discrimination and harassment.

Following Scardina’s first complaint, Phillips filed a countersuit against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in August 2018, and he and the commission settled last March, agreeing to not move forward with the case. In a previous case, the seven-member commission had found Phillips in violation of the state’s nondiscrimination laws for refusing service to a gay couple who ordered a wedding cake in 2012 (the Supreme Court overturned the commission’s decision in a narrow 2018 ruling, finding that its members displayed “clear and impermissible hostility” to religion).

Good. The Supreme Court had enough common sense to toss this farce of a case out the window.

After the commission dropped Scardina’s case, she filed a separate lawsuit last June arguing that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated both Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act. The complaint, filed with the District Court for the City and County of Denver, alleges that the business “refused to sell a birthday cake to Ms. Scardina because she is transgender despite repeatedly advertising that they would sell birthday cakes to the general public, including LGBT individuals.” The prior complaint clarifies that the cake was meant to celebrate both Scardina’s birthday, which is on July 7, and the seventh anniversary of her “transition from male to female.”

Scardina’s attorney, Paula Greisen, said that her client’s case shows that Masterpiece Cakeshop has been engaging in deceptive business practices, accusing the bakery of not being “honest with the public.”

“The dignity of all citizens in our state needs to be honored,” Greisen said in a statement when the case was originally filed last year. “Masterpiece Cakeshop said before the Supreme Court they would serve any baked good to members of the LGBTQ community. It was just the religious significance of it being a wedding cake.”

But in a Thursday hearing, Phillips’ attorneys requested that the Denver court immediately dismiss the lawsuit. Jake Warner, legal counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, said that Scardina should “have filed at the court of appeals” instead of filing a new lawsuit at the district court level. Warner claimed the “plaintiff wants to start the case all over and that isn’t fair to Mr. Phillips.”

Representatives with Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group that also represented Phillips in his case before the Supreme Court, said Scardina’s continued pursuit of the case is intended to “harass” Phillips over his religious beliefs. In a statement shared with NBC News, Kristen Waggoner, senior vice president of ADF’s U.S. legal division, said Phillips is being targeted “because he won’t create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in conflict with his conscience.”

“This attorney’s relentless pursuit of Jack was an obvious attempt to punish him for his views, banish him from the marketplace and financially ruin him and his shop,” Warner added.

Disgusting.

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner in court again for denying LGBTQ customer
 
Public accommodation laws are pretty clear. If you want to open your business to the public, you have to open it to the public. If you don't, you can hand select your clientele by any metric you choose. You don't get to... have your cake and eat it too.

On a moral note, there's literally nothing in the bible about the alleged sin of baking a cake for a homosexual and this guy is no different than a bigot who would hang a "No negroes" sign in front of his shop. Interacting with black people was also once claimed to be a violation of their religion by bigoted Christians. I'm glad we stopped tolerating that bull****.
 
Last edited:
Nobody should be forced to do business they don't want to do. The people pushing this lawsuit are scumbags looking for attention.
 
Public accommodation laws are pretty clear. If you want to open your business to the public, you have to open it to the public. If you don't, you can hand select your clientele by any metric you choose. You don't get to... have your cake and eat it too.
On a moral note, there's literally nothing in the bible about the alleged sin of baking a cake for a homosexual and this guy is no different than a bigot who would hang a "No negroes" sign in front of his shop. Interacting with black people was also once claimed to be a violation of their religion by bigoted Christians. I'm glad we stopped tolerating that bull****.


Government in PA just gave store owners the "right" to turn away customers ...

"... It dictates that businesses “require all customers to wear masks while on premises, and deny entry to individuals not wearing masks, ..."

Looks like government now uses businesses to dictate who will get food and who not ... ;)
 
Nobody should be forced to do business they don't want to do. The people pushing this lawsuit are scumbags looking for attention.

And what happens when the owners of the 2 grocery stores within 100 miles of a small town in Alabama decide they "don't like n***ers"? Just screw them right? The black people in town can either starve or move?

Government in PA just gave store owners the "right" to turn away customers ...
"... It dictates that businesses “require all customers to wear masks while on premises, and deny entry to individuals not wearing masks, ..."
Looks like government now uses businesses to dictate who will get food and who not ... ;)

You're comparing mask wearing with being black or gay and a bigoted business owner with the government of PA? Hard pass, kid.
 
And what happens when the owners of the 2 grocery stores within 100 miles of a small town in Alabama decide they "don't like n***ers"? Just screw them right? The black people in town can either starve or move?

I'm not sure your imaginary scenario would happen in 2020 considering that even in the 50s black people had places to shop at in the south. The free market will reward business owners with enough sense to not discriminate. Big Brother is not needed.
 
Public accommodation laws are pretty clear. If you want to open your business to the public, you have to open it to the public. If you don't, you can hand select your clientele by any metric you choose. You don't get to... have your cake and eat it too.

Being transgender doesn't grant one public accommodation priority. That's for handicapped people. Having a public business doesn't mean disrespectful idiots get to be served.

On a moral note, there's literally nothing in the bible about the alleged sin of baking a cake for a homosexual and this guy is no different than a bigot who would hang a "No negroes" sign in front of his shop. Interacting with black people was also once claimed to be a violation of their religion by bigoted Christians. I'm glad we stopped tolerating that bull****.

The Bible didn't talk about cakes, it talked about how homosexuality is a sin and details the consequences of those individuals. Creating false narratives won't suit you.
 
Public accommodation laws are pretty clear. If you want to open your business to the public, you have to open it to the public. If you don't, you can hand select your clientele by any metric you choose. You don't get to... have your cake and eat it too.

On a moral note, there's literally nothing in the bible about the alleged sin of baking a cake for a homosexual and this guy is no different than a bigot who would hang a "No negroes" sign in front of his shop. Interacting with black people was also once claimed to be a violation of their religion by bigoted Christians. I'm glad we stopped tolerating that bull****.

What if the request is for a NAMBLA cake? What if the customer wants a sexually graphic design? What if the customer is just plain being an asshole about everything? Can the owner adjust pricing at will and, for example, agree to do the cake but will charge $1M up front?

I've refused to do business with a number of potential customers over the years for a number of reasons and will continue to refuse the ones I believe will be trouble makers.
 
What if the request is for a NAMBLA cake? What if the customer wants a sexually graphic design? What if the customer is just plain being an asshole about everything? Can the owner adjust pricing at will and, for example, agree to do the cake but will charge $1M up front?

I've refused to do business with a number of potential customers over the years for a number of reasons and will continue to refuse the ones I believe will be trouble makers.

What's the rationale for refusing to bake a cake with blue and white frosting?
 
I'm not sure your imaginary scenario would happen in 2020 considering that even in the 50s black people had places to shop at in the south. The free market will reward business owners with enough sense to not discriminate. Big Brother is not needed.

They were called Ghettos

Do you yearn for the days where the stores you went to were only for whites?
 
I'm not sure your imaginary scenario would happen in 2020 considering that even in the 50s black people had places to shop at in the south. The free market will reward business owners with enough sense to not discriminate. Big Brother is not needed.

If the free market was enough to stop discrimination, we wouldn't have needed public acommodation laws in the first place.
 
What's the rationale for refusing to bake a cake with blue and white frosting?

That wasn't the reason for the refusal. If you read the article the significance of the cake went against the owner's religious beliefs, which is a federally protected right.
 
Public accommodation laws are pretty clear. If you want to open your business to the public, you have to open it to the public. If you don't, you can hand select your clientele by any metric you choose.

People who support freedom of association believe no one should be forced into a contract with another person against their will. The issue is over what the law should be, not what currently is, so what you wrote above is irrelevant.
 
If the free market was enough to stop discrimination, we wouldn't have needed public acommodation laws in the first place.

The issue is social activists targeting specific businesses based on the owner's religious views. It's no different than someone going into a bake shop that markets themselves as gay friendly and ordering a cake for a "Kick the Fags Out Of Town" rally.
 
If the free market was enough to stop discrimination, we wouldn't have needed public acommodation laws in the first place.

By that reasoning, if racial discrimination was widespread, Democrats like you wouldn't have needed to pass Jim Crow laws.
 
What's the rationale for refusing to bake a cake with blue and white frosting?

Who cares? The point is you shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone. The whole idea of forcing people into contracts against their will is so stupid and idiotic that it's amazing it has to be explained to anyone.
 
That wasn't the reason for the refusal. If you read the article the significance of the cake went against the owner's religious beliefs, which is a federally protected right.

In other words, there was nothing the bakery found objectionable about the cake itself?
 
Being transgender doesn't grant one public accommodation priority. That's for handicapped people. Having a public business doesn't mean disrespectful idiots get to be served.
The Bible didn't talk about cakes, it talked about how homosexuality is a sin and details the consequences of those individuals. Creating false narratives won't suit you.

Aha, so baking a cake for homosexuals isn't a sin, nor is baking a cake for any kind of sinner. It's not a violation of his religion and he's doing it purely from a place of hatred and spite. You guys support a thrice married serial adulterer for president, so let's not pretend you have serious moral convictions.

That wasn't the reason for the refusal. If you read the article the significance of the cake went against the owner's religious beliefs, which is a federally protected right.

Lol, exactly. It had nothing to do with him baking some over the top homosexual penis shaped cake, it was a normal cake and he just didn't want "faggots" to eat it. How Christian! :lamo

What if the request is for a NAMBLA cake? What if the customer wants a sexually graphic design? What if the customer is just plain being an asshole about everything? Can the owner adjust pricing at will and, for example, agree to do the cake but will charge $1M up front?

I've refused to do business with a number of potential customers over the years for a number of reasons and will continue to refuse the ones I believe will be trouble makers.

I don't see any legal requirement for a specific type of cake to be made that the baker doesn't offer. A simple wedding cake is something he offers, so he doesn't get to arbitrarily deny who can buy that cake. Do you fall into the group of people that wants to see more "No Negroes" signs in front of restaurants and grocery stores?

People who support freedom of association believe no one should be forced into a contract with another person against their will. The issue is over what the law should be, not what currently is, so what you wrote above is irrelevant.
I'm not sure your imaginary scenario would happen in 2020 considering that even in the 50s black people had places to shop at in the south. The free market will reward business owners with enough sense to not discriminate. Big Brother is not needed.

Sorry, we've tried America where businesses can arbitrarily deny service to minorities and it was a nightmare. Hard pass.
 
Did the customer merely order a cake with blue and white frosting?

What do you mean "merely"? That was the description of the cake which was ordered. On what religious basis do they object to a blue and pink cake?
 
Who cares? The point is you shouldn't be forced to do business with anyone. The whole idea of forcing people into contracts against their will is so stupid and idiotic that it's amazing it has to be explained to anyone.

I'm forced to do business with people I don't like every day I go to work. Guess what? I get over it.
 
Please explain how the government forces you into contracts you don't want to enter.

As a grocery store, we're in the public domain, and that means we're not allowed to deny service to people simply because we don't like them. We need a no trespass order to bar them from the premises.
 
As a grocery store, we're in the public domain, and that means we're not allowed to deny service to people simply because we don't like them. We need a no trespass order to bar them from the premises.

So the government is violating your rights, and you're using that fact as a reason for the government to violate everyone's rights. Brilliant.
 
Back
Top Bottom