Masterpiece Cakeshop Sues Colorado And Gov Hickenlooper Citing Religious Discrimination [VIDEO]

Masterpiece Cakeshop Sues Colorado And Gov Hickenlooper Citing Religious Discrimination [VIDEO]

Masterpiece Cakeshop Sues Colorado And Gov Hickenlooper Citing Religious Discrimination [VIDEO]

In spite of the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is going after Jack Phillips once again. And Phillips isn’t having any of it. He has filed a religious discrimination lawsuit against the commission and Governor Hickenlooper. Why? Because of a complaint from a transgender attorney.

Interestingly, the Commission has held on to this case since June 20, 2017. From Legal Insurrection:

On June 26, 2017, the very same day the Supreme Court agreed to take the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, Attorney Autumn Scardina called the cake shop to request a “gender transition” cake. The cake shop declined, so on June 20, 2017, Scardina filed a complaint, with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission:

I believe I was unlawfully discriminated against because of my protectcd class(es) in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). 1.) On or about June 26. 2017, I was denied full and equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation. Specifically, the Respondent refused to prepare my order for a cake with pink interior and blue exterior, which I disclosed was inttended for the celebration of my transition from male to female. Furthermore. 1hc Respondent indicated to me that to prepare such a cake would be against their religious beliefs. 2.) I believe I was discriminated against because of my protected class(cs).

A transgender attorney called up Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested a custom cake designed to be a transition gender reveal. Masterpiece stayed consistent and refused to make a CUSTOM cake but still offered to sell a pre-made cake or direct them to another baker. Said attorney threw a fit and filed a complaint, which you can read  here.

However, it wasn’t just that one request. 

In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.

It’s obvious that Jack Phillips was targeted then, and is being targeted now by the Commission.

Keep in mind, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was spanked by SCOTUS in June. The commission, per SCOTUS ruling, is supposed to remain completely neutral when ruling on cases.

“The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.”

As Jenny points out here, the ruling by SCOTUS was a narrow one.

The baker was discriminated against because he didn’t get a fair hearing. The Court highlighted the commission meetings where biased things were said and no one objected at any time. The baker’s concerns were brushed aside at every level of appeal.

So, the timing of Scardina’s complaint is VERY suspect. Furthermore, the fact that the Commission held on to the complaint and has now ruled AGAINST Jack Phillips once again is also suspect given SCOTUS’ ruling. Understandably, Phillips has filed a lawsuit in federal court.

What did the commission do? They filed a probable cause determination against Phillips. The commission found that Phillips violated state law. Only problem is, that ruling was made EVEN THOUGH the proceedings were still in the PRELIMINARY stage. Get that? The case is barely on the docket and the commission says…”YEP. You discriminated once again. To the woodshed you go!”

It’s no wonder Phillips and his attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom have filed a lawsuit.

William Jacobsen of Legal Insurrection has the details of the lawsuit. Read it in full here. However, these are key points in the complaint:

  • When initial request was made, Scardina had the shop on speaker phone
  • Masterpiece declined the request to make a custom cake because they didn’t want to be a party to the message the CAKE would convey
  • Civil Rights Division did acknowledge Masterpiece’s religious beliefs but then completely ignored the message-based reason for declining to make a custom cake

But the Colorado Civil Rights Division just had to keep digging.

Exactly. If the federal court decides to hear the case, it could very well go all the way to the Supreme Court once again.

Written by

  • SFC D says:

    Once again, we see the tolerant, liberal left in action. And they wonder why people are walking away.

  • GWB says:

    There’s only two long-term answers to this. Either the CO gov’t needs throw off every member of the commission (and arguably, disband it altogether as non-representative of a “republican form of gov’t”) or the people need to eliminate the problem. Period.
    If the people or their representatives won’t do this, then there’s no stopping the slide down the slope.

  • Micha Elyi says:

    I am looking forward to a large monetary damages settlement against the Leftist government of Colorado in favor of Mr. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. The settlement should also include humiliating political re-education civil rights sensitivity training for Gov. Hickenlooper and the rest of the bureaucratic foodchain down through the Colorado so-called Civil Rights Commission to the lowest level minion of Colorado state government who participated in these show trials and attempted show trials.

    I also look forward to a 14th Amendment claim of Mr. Phillips’s civil rights being denied under color of law entered into federal court against the usual suspects. Triple damages plus recovery of attorney’s fees, yum!

  • tim maguire says:

    I wonder–is it relevant to the case if the lawyer was not, in fact, planning a transgender coming out party? And, if it is relevant and not true, does that constitute a knowingly false statement? How much of her personal life opens up here? Can she end up before an ethics commission?

  • Jeremy Klein says:

    This is patently obviously a violation of a citizen’s right to freedom of association, and the right to be free from enforced servitude. The Supreme Court, the president, and the Congress, should long ago have acted to protect these rights. They have not, other than the “narrow ruling” mentioned above. Since they haven’t, the various states’ governors should have acted to protect these rights. Since they haven’t, the various county sheriffs, deputizing as many armed citizens as necessary, should stand against this tyranny, by preventing enforcement of any penalties inflicted on the baker. This is what the Second Amendment is for.

  • Linda Fox says:

    ‘Bout time he struck back. This is harassment – deliberate, religiously-based harassment.

    Hope he gets a s—load of money.

    • Byron R. Winchell says:

      Well, he needs to be compensated because spending time and money before the local Soviet kangaroo court means money and time not spent at his chosen profession. The “process is the punishment”, as the Left likes to say when persecuting.

  • Capn Jim says:

    The problem he’s going to face is enduring a lengthy, costly journey through the federal courts system.He’ll probably face a liberal federal judge in Colorado, then liberal judges on the federal appeals court, both of which will probably ignore the constitution and rule against him. Then he’ll have to wade through difficult waters to get his case heard and decided upon by the Supreme Court. He can probably count on Judge Kavanaugh to be on the Supreme Court and make his ruling based on the constituion not on how he feels about the case whether or not the baker’s position is protected by the constitution.

  • Da Bear says:

    From Wiki:
    “Despotism (Greek: Δεσποτισμός, Despotismós) is a form of government in which a single entity rules with absolute power. Normally, that entity is an individual, the despot, as in an autocracy, but societies which limit respect and power to specific groups have also been called despotic.

    Colloquially, the word despot applies pejoratively to those who abuse their power and authority to oppress their populace, subjects, or subordinates. More specifically, the term often applies to a head of state or government. In this sense, it is similar to the pejorative connotations that are associated with the terms tyrant and dictator.”

    From the Declaration of Independence:
    “But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”


  • Joshua K. says:

    There’s an error in the quote from Legal Insurrection which messes up the chronology. It should say that on July 20, 2017, Scardina filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

  • Bitterly Resistant says:

    I saw a post at another forum that suggested recruiting a volunteer living in the same area to try to order a custom cake from a gay-run or gay-friendly bakery and then upon refusal to file a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and to sue the bakery. I liked the suggestions for frosting messages!

    “Congratulations! You’re Not Gay!”

    “Real Men Love Beautiful Women.”

    “Be Right With the Lord — Leviticus 18:22”

    This tactic seems like a great way to expose the extreme hypocrisy of the “Gaystapo.”

    • scott says:

      I’e thought the same thing, but you can bet hat the “civil rights” commission wouldn’t even hear such a complaint… of course, that might get em in hot water with SCOTUS…. one can hope, can’t we???
      The difference is, most of us “deplorables” don’t feel the need to virtue signal… we know “our kind” wouldn’t be welcome in a gay bakery (there is one, less than 5 miles from Masterpiece, which further proves this kind of clownish behavior is just bullshit), and that they would not be interested in making such a cake for us, (and who knows what they might do to it if the did make it), so we just avoid the issue, and go somewhere that our business will be appreciated… what a concept huh??

  • Deplorable Henchman says:

    I would never trust an anti-gay message cake from a gay bakery I’d be too worried about extra cream filling.

    I can’t see masterpiece’s problem with the pink-blue cake. Wait, yes I can. Never sell something to a customer who hares you. Just begging for trouble.

    “Congrats on cutting off your dick” would look good on top.

  • richard40 says:

    I could perhaps see them doing the first action, the law was not yet settled then. But not dropping this closely related second action, after they had already lost in court on the first one, is clearly abuse of power. I hope he gets a big monetary judgement from these power mad lawless loons.

  • Deoxy says:

    The crazy thing about all of this is that the PRODUCT is what’s being limited, not the customer.

    By all accounts, he’ll make a custom cake for anyone. ANYONE.

    And, again, by all accounts, he won’t make CERTAIN kinds of cakes for anyone. ANYONE.

    The rules are exactly the same, no matter who the customer is. He’s giving everyone the SAME service!

    In case you are not seeing the point (deliberately or otherwise), let’s say you’re a straight, married person (white and male, even, just in case that matters to anyone), and order a custom cake for a gay wedding (say, one of your children). Does anyone think the answer will be different?

    And if you’re flaming gay (black, female, throw whatever group you want on here) and you ask for a custom cake for, say, a graduation… there’s no evidence that he would refuse.

    It’s the PRODUCT that varies – the customers all get exactly the same treatment.

  • BikerDad says:

    Somebody needs to take Scardina out behind the court house and beat some sense into him. Yes. Him.
    “We” smack
    “Do” pow
    “Not” smack
    “Have to” pop-pop
    “Share” smack
    “Your” jab
    “Delusion” WHAM

    • GWB says:

      Oh, but we do.
      At least until we finally apply the same sort of protections for “right to assemble (or associate)” that we do for speech. Because until then, you will be forced to associate with these folks – and in a fashion that makes them not feel uncomfortable.

  • Shelba says:

    The gays will never quit harassing Masterpiece Cakeshop unless the Supreme Court rules that any business that refuses service to a gay, transgender or any other cult that a religious business deems against their religion cannot be persecuted because of the first amendment which reads- congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press

    • GWB says:

      More importantly, rules they have a right to assemble – which translates to “do business with whomever they want to do business with.”
      The left got their hooks deeply into business when they dishonestly put some of the onus on businesses in the civil rights fight, rather than focusing just on the law (where the gov’t actually had authority).

  • […] of all, Autumn Scardina deliberately sought Jack Phillips out. It is no coincidence that Scardina went to Jack Phillips […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner