'This Is Where the Systematic Killing Took Place': 200 Days of War From...
White House Insists Biden Has Been 'Very Clear' About His Position on Pro-Hamas...
Watch Biden Lose the Battle With His Teleprompter Again
Thanks, Biden! Here's How Iran Is Still Making Billions to Fund Terrorism
Trump Not Sending His Best
DeSantis May Not Be Facing Biden in November, but Still Offers Perfect Response...
Lawmakers in One State Pass Legislation to Allow Teachers to Carry Guns in...
UnitedHealth Has Too Much Power
Former Democratic Rep. Who Lost to John Fetterman Sure Doesn't Like the Senator...
Biden Rewrote Title IX to Protect 'Trans' People. Here's How Somes States Responded.
Watch: Joe Biden's Latest Flub Is Laugh-Out-Loud Funny
Hundreds of Athletes Urge the NCAA to Allow Men to Compete Against Women
‘Net Neutrality’ Would Give Biden Wartime Powers to Censor Online Speech
Lefty Journalist Deceptively Edits Clip of Fox News Legal Expert
Is the Marist Poll a Cause for Concern?
Tipsheet

Masterpiece Cakeshop Baker Loses Appeal Over Gender-Transition Cake

A Colorado baker who won a Supreme Court victory for refusing to create a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his Christian beliefs lost an appeal this week in a lawsuit over his refusal to make a birthday cake celebrating a transgender person’s gender transition.

Advertisement

According to the Associated Press, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that the cake Autumn Scardina requested from baker Jack Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop is “not a form of speech.”

Reportedly, Phillips initially agreed to make the birthday cake, then reversed course when Scardina explained that the cake was celebrating his transition from male to female. The cake was to be pink on the inside with blue frosting on the outside. 

In addition, the court found that Colorado law makes it illegal to refuse to provide services based on a person’s race, religion, sexual orientation, and other characteristics. The court found that this statute does not violate Philips’ right to express his religious beliefs. 

“We conclude that creating a pink cake with blue frosting is not inherently expressive and any message or symbolism it provides to an observer would not be attributed to the baker,” the court said in its decision.

Phillips was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom, which said on Thursday that a plan was already in the works to appeal the case to the Colorado Supreme Court. Phillips’ cakes, the attorneys argued, are a form of free speech.

Advertisement

“Free speech is for everyone. No one should be forced to express a message that violates their core beliefs,” ADF senior counsel Jake Warner said in a statement.

“Over a decade ago, Colorado officials began targeting Jack, misusing state law to force him to say things he does not believe,” Warner added. “Then an activist attorney continued that crusade. This cruelty must stop. One need not agree with Jack’s views to agree that all Americans should be free to say what they believe, even if the government disagrees with those beliefs.”

Phillips previously won a case at the Supreme Court in 2018 when he did not make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to his Christian faith, as mentioned above. But, Phillips was sued again in 2021 when Scardina approached him wanting Masterpiece Cakeshop to create the gender transition cake. 

John McHugh, Scardina’s attorney, told The Daily Caller that Thursday’s ruling is a “victory” for the “greater LGBTQ community.”

“The court held that Masterpiece Cakeshop broke the law when it refused to sell a birthday cake to Ms. Scardina because she is a transgender woman,” McHugh said. “In doing so, the court rejected the defendants’ free speech argument because, as defendants admitted at trial, a pink cake with blue frosting does not have any inherent meaning and the act of selling a cake is not speech. Similarly, the Court held, consistent with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, that Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs do not exempt him from anti-discrimination laws.”

Advertisement

Warner told the Caller that the court’s arguments ignore Supreme Court precedent, and that “symbolic speech” is within the rights granted by the U.S. Constitution.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member

Recommended

Trending on Townhall Videos

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement