Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Round 2

[Neo-Scholastic]

I read that too and it isn't relevant. No one denies that the Masterpiece Cake shop is a place of public accommodation. No one denies that the State of Colorado considers transgendered people a protected class. That is why those are acknowledged in the Statements of Fact along with the part I quoted.

The part I quoted confirms that as far a Colorado is concerned discrimination occurs if and only if the reason for denying someone service is because they are part of a protected class. According to Colorado law it is NOT discrimination to decline making a bespoke product that expresses an objectionable message. Presumably, Philips would refuse to bake a cake for a straight customer also if the intended meaning of the cakes design was to celebrate a transitioning. If the activist lawyer had simply said he or she wanted a pink and blue cake and left it at that then it would be clear that Philips had indeed discriminated on the basis of the person's gender identity. Alternatively, if the lawyer had stayed silent and Philips baked the cake not knowing the significance of the colors, he would be in the clear, having proved that gender identity, in and of itself, was not for him a reason to deny service. Instead, the lawyer made a point of stating what the design signified, a message he or she knew Philips would find offensive. In other words, Philips does not object to serving people simply because they are gay or trans. Philips merely would not make, what was in his estimation, an offensive decorative design regardless of the customer's gender identity.