Texas

A Colorado Christian bakery was fined after refusing to make a transsexual cake

A Christian bakery in Colorado was fined after refusing to make a transsexual cake. Proponents claim he is being targeted by LGBT activists.

Jack Phillips violated state anti-discrimination legislation by refusing to make a birthday cake for transgender woman Autumn Scardina.

Philips is famous for having a partial victory in the US Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make a same-sex couple’s wedding cake.

In a decision on Tuesday, Judge A. Bruce Jones of the Denver district said Skaldina was denied a blue cake on the outside and a pink cake on the inside to celebrate her birthday transsexual in violation of the law. I did.

Phillips said he couldn’t make a cake because of the message, but Jones said the case was a refusal to sell the product, not a compulsory statement.

He pointed out that Phillips testified at a March trial that he didn’t think anyone could change gender and wouldn’t celebrate “the one who thinks he can.”

“The anti-discrimination law has historically been mistreated and members of our society, who have even been deprived of even the daily right to access businesses to purchase products, are no longer treated as” others. The purpose is to do so. Jones wrote.

A Colorado bakery violated state anti-discrimination laws by refusing to make birthday cakes for transgender women, a state judge ruled. The same bakery, Jack Phillips (pictured), is famous for his partial victory in the US Supreme Court in 2018 for refusing to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

Philips Defending Freedom, a group representing Philips, said Wednesday that it would appeal against a ruling ordering a $ 500 fine.

The maximum fine for each Colorado antitrust violation is $ 500. However, it was not clear from the ruling whether it was a fine for the two attempts Skaldina made to order the cake, or a one-time fine.

“In this case, the activist lawyer demanded that Jack” test Jack “and make a custom cake to” correct “the mistakes in his idea, and the activist would ask Jack if the case was rejected for any reason. Even threatened to sue again. Kristen Wagoner, the group’s legal counsel, said in a statement.

“Extreme activists and government officials are targeting artists like Jack because they don’t promote messages about marriage or sexuality that violate their core beliefs,” the statement added.

Ms. Wagoner said the incident represented a disturbing trend. It is the weaponization of the judicial system to destroy those who activists oppose.

“We appeal to this decision and continue to defend the freedom of all Americans who live and work in peace according to their deep beliefs, without fear of punishment,” she said.

In a decision on Tuesday, Judge A. Bruce Jones of the Denver district refused Autumn Scardina (pictured) a cake with blue outside and pink inside to celebrate her birthday transsexual in violation of the law. Said it was done

In a decision on Tuesday, Judge A. Bruce Jones of the Denver district refused Autumn Scardina (pictured) a cake with blue outside and pink inside to celebrate her birthday transsexual in violation of the law. Said it was done

Attorney Skaldina tried to order the cake on the same day that the US Supreme Court announced in 2017 that she would hear Phillips’ appeal in the wedding cake case, but Phillips eventually won.

According to Jones, Skaldina wanted to “challenge the credibility” of the Philips statement to serve LGBT customers, but the attempt to obtain the cake was aimed at filing a proceeding. It was not the “setting” that was done.

John McHugh, one of Scardina’s lawyers, said the case wasn’t just about what happened to her, but about how LGBT people are treated.

“It’s about a publicly open business that simply tells all classes of people in the community that your identity as to who you are is dissent,” he said. It was.

“The proceedings began the day the Supreme Court decided to hear our proceedings. Phillips told Fox News in March about transgender cakes.

“In the midst of this turmoil, a Denver lawyer called me and asked me to make a pink cake on the inside and a blue icing on the outside.”

A passage from the Bible is on display at the Jack Phillips Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, USA, on September 21, 2017. Photo taken on September 21, 2017

A passage from the Bible is on display at the Jack Phillips Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, USA, on September 21, 2017. Photo taken on September 21, 2017

He said the cake was said to be “two colors, color schemes and combinations designed to celebrate transsexuals.”

“We told our customers, this caller, that this cake was a cake that we couldn’t make because of the message. The caller turned around and sued us,” Phillips told Fox News. “This customer has come to us intentionally to get us to make a cake or to refuse to make a cake that goes against our religious beliefs.

“This customer has been tracking our case for years. This was just a request to trap us,” he added at the time.

Phillips previously won a proceeding in a Supreme Court trial in 2018 after refusing to make a same-sex couple’s wedding cake.

Anti-religious prejudice when the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission sanctioned Phillips in 2012 for refusing to make a wedding cake for same-sex couples Charlie Craig and Dave Marines. Was determined to have shown.

Anti-religious prejudice in 2018 when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission sanctioned Phillips for refusing to make a wedding cake for same-sex couples Charlie Craig and Dave Marines in 2012. Was determined to have shown (photo)

Anti-religious prejudice in 2018 when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission sanctioned Phillips for refusing to make a wedding cake for same-sex couples Charlie Craig and Dave Marines in 2012. Was determined to have shown (photo)

Anti-religious prejudice when the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission sanctioned Phillips in 2012 for refusing to make a wedding cake for same-sex couples Charlie Craig and Dave Marines. Was determined to have shown.

Anti-religious prejudice when the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission sanctioned Phillips in 2012 for refusing to make a wedding cake for same-sex couples Charlie Craig and Dave Marines. Was determined to have shown.

Phillips lawyers said that his cake was an art form, a “temporary sculpture” and was forced to make a cake to commemorate the gay wedding, freedom of speech and expression and He claimed to violate his right under the US Constitution to the free exercise of religion.

He could only make 2-5 custom cakes a week to the State Civil Rights Commission at the time, depending on time constraints and consumer demand for cakes sold in his non-special order stores. Said.

Malins and Craig, represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, said Phillips used his Christian faith as an excuse for illegal discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The ACLU said bakeries are advocating “licenses to discriminate” that can have a wide range of implications beyond homosexual rights.

The incident became a cultural flash point in the United States, emphasizing tensions between gay advocates and conservative Christians.

The proceedings, along with similar cases across the country, are part of a conservative Christian opposition to the Supreme Court’s decision on gay marriage.

Phillips and others like him, who believe that gay marriage is not in line with their Christian beliefs, effectively support gay marriage, albeit legal. Should not be required.

Definition of Colorado Discrimination in Public Facility Locations

Baker Jack Phillips was fined $ 500 after being found by a judge for violating Colorado’s antitrust law. But what do you call that act?

24-34-601. Discrimination in Public Facility Locations-Definition:

(1) “Public Facility Locations” as used in Part 6 are all establishments engaged in public sales and locations that provide services, facilities, privileges, benefits, or public accommodation. Means. Any business that generally offers wholesale or retail sales. Places to eat, drink, sleep, rest, or a combination thereof. Sports or recreation areas and facilities. Public transport; barbers, baths, swimming pools, baths, steam parlors or massage parlors, gymnasiums, or other facilities that help a person’s health, appearance, or physical condition. Campsite or trailer camp. Clinics, clinics, hospitals, convalescent homes, or other facilities for illness, illness, the elderly, or the physically challenged. Morgue, office, or graveyard. Educational institutions; or public buildings, parks, arenas, theaters, halls, auditoriums, museums, libraries, exhibits, or public facilities of any kind, indoors or outdoors. “Public Facility Locations” do not include churches, synagogues, mosques, or other locations used primarily for religious purposes.

(2) (a) It is a discriminatory practice to directly or indirectly reject, withhold, or reject an individual or group because of disability, race, beliefs, color, gender, or sexual orientation. Yes, it’s illegal. , Marriage status, country of origin, or ancestor, goods, services, facilities, privileges, benefits, or full and equal enjoyment of accommodation, or directly or indirectly, publicly, distributed, issued, displayed. Post written, electronic, or printed communications, notices, or advertisements indicating that the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, benefits, or accommodations in public facilities is denied or withheld. Or personal refusal, or personal support or presence at the location of a public facility, is unwelcome or undesirable due to disability, race, creed, color, gender, sexual orientation, or marriage. , Unacceptable or undesirable status, country of origin, or ancestor.

(B) Claims filed pursuant to paragraph (a) of this subsection (2) based on disability are covered by the provisions of Section 24-34-802.

(2.5) Discrimination against an individual or group is a discriminatory practice because they opposed the practice of discriminatory practice by this Part 6 or because such individual or group was prosecuted and testified. , It is illegal. Assisted or participated in any surveys, procedures, or hearings conducted in accordance with Part 6.

(3) Notwithstanding the other provisions of this section, restricting access to public facilities to male and female individuals, such restrictions are the privileges and benefits of such places of goods, services, facilities and public facilities. , Or accommodation.

A Colorado Christian bakery was fined after refusing to make a transsexual cake

Source link A Colorado Christian bakery was fined after refusing to make a transsexual cake

Back to top button