Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Joods]

No, the state of Colorado is telling everyone who runs a business open to the public that they don't get to discriminate against protected classes. The asshole baker is just too fucking stupid to figure that out. He insists on continuing in discriminatory practices and he's going to continue to get slapped down.

Completely not true. There was no discrimination based on protected class.

From the Statements of Fact of the filed complaint: HERE

---

“Colorado has announced the general rule that expressive business owners, including cake artists, do not violate the public-accommodation law if they decline to create a custom item expressing a message that they would not communicate for anyone. In the  Masterpiece  case, Colorado told the Supreme Court how this general rule applies to cake artists. Colorado said that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes featuring  pro-LGBT themes or symbols: “If [a cake artist] would not sell a … cake with a particular artistic theme,” such as a “cake featuring a symbol of gay pride,” “to any customer, regardless of that customer’s protected characteristics, he need not sell one to [anyone].” Colorado further explained that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes with pro-LGBT designs and messages: “Under the Act, [a cake artist] is free … to decline to sell cakes with ‘pro-gay’ designs or inscriptions.” And Colorado announced that it allows cake artists to decline to create custom cakes that they consider offensive: “Businesses are entitled to reject orders … because they deem a particular product requested by a customer to be ‘offensive.’”

Philips has NOT denied service to anyone of a protected class because they are part of a protected class. That is a fact proven by his past practices. However, the baker declines, in general, to make bespoke products expressing messages he finds offensive or which violate his religious beliefs. The State of Colorado is violating its own express standards in order to harass one particular man at the prompting of an activist lawyer with a bogus request motivated by anti-Christian bigotry...the same type that is being clearly displayed here.

---

In order to fully understand Colorado's public accommodation law, you need to show what it is, as it is presented in the "Complaint" you cited here. You jumped all the way to number 64 and didn't even include the entire paragraph, with all of its citations. Interesting that you did it that way. Since you felt it necessary to exclude relevant information, including this bit under "Statement of Facts", starting with Number 28, I've provided it below. Let it be shown that the "Statements of Fact" in that document, actually start with paragraph 28, which reads, with citations:

Defendants enforce Colorado’s public-accommodation law.


28. Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) makes it “unlawful for a person,“directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of …creed … , sex, [or] sexual orientation,” “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services,facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.” Colo.Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a).

29. That law defines “[p]erson” as “one or more individuals, limited liability companies, partnerships, associations, corporations, [or] legal representatives.” Colo. Rev. Stat.§ 24-34-301(5)(a).

30. That law defines “place of public accommodation” as “any place of business 
engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages,or accommodations to the public, including but not limited to any business offering wholesale or retail sales to the public.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(1).

31. Colorado considers Masterpiece Cakeshop a place of public accommodation under Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(1).

32. The public-accommodation law defines “[s]exual orientation” as “an individual’s orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status or another individual’s perception thereof.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-301(7).

33. That law exempts some organizations from its requirements. For example, it does not apply to “a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.” Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(1). The law does not define “place that is principally used for religious purposes.”