Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Angrboda]

I don't think I fully understand the issue.

Was the cake ultimately refused because of the identity of the person, or something about the cake that expressed trans pride?

I have to say, there are some perfectly legal things that I, if I were a cake maker, wouldn't be willing to write on a cake.  "Congratulations on your son's circumcision," maybe, since I think that's a barbaric practice.  If pedophilia was somehow legalized (say if it was conducted under the auspices of a Church as "religious expression"), and I knew a cake was intended to be served at a pedophilia party, I might say, "Fuck you guys, you assholes don't get any of my delicious cake!"

What I don't understand is how any of this comes up in this particular case.  The gay wedding I get-- the baker is likely being asked to put two grooms on the cake, and the baker doesn't want to do it.  But in this case, how does the trans issue come up?  It seems to me very likely that someone, knowing the religious proclivities of the baker, is baiting him/her by injecting sexuality into a business transaction that wouldn't require it.

My question would be this: should a cake maker be allowed to refuse to write a message ON the cake if they want?  Can they just bake a generic cake, and give the person ordering a tube of stuff to write with?

The lawyer requesting the cake explicitly noted that it was going to be used in association with a transgender celebration when she ordered the cake, and Phillips explicitly told her that the reason for his refusal was because of the nature of the celebration involved. People seem to capitalize on the idea that the lawyer was intentionally bringing the issue up, but at the same time, Phillips didn't have to give a reason for the refusal either. So I think that cuts both ways. It really doesn't matter, though. Requesting a cake in the way that the lawyer did does not violate any law, and such "test cases" are floated all the time. The legal issue isn't changed by how the issue came about. At the time of the original ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop, there were already similar cases in the pipeline to test such laws with respect to businesses providing other products and services. The case of William Jack was referenced in the Supreme Court decision in which Jack went around to various known LGBT friendly bakers asking for a cake with anti-homosexual bible verses on them and was refused on the grounds that the content was "offensive" (whether the state is entitled to rule on what constitutes an offensive message hasn't really been adjudicated, but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission denied his suit against the LGBT friendly bakers). At the time that William Jack was doing this, he was advertising on Youtube just exactly what he was doing in trying to generate similar discrimination cases, and it hasn't affected any ruling on the matter.