That is actually a really interesting hypothetical which according to my reading would be a legally protected as long the the butcher claimed it was against his religion to enable the sins of other Jews.
Tell that to Rosa Parks.
I think its a bit different taking the initiative to break the law yourself and suffer the consequences as an act of civil disobedience, versus consciously putting someone else in a situation where they will be forced according to their moral code to break the law and suffer the consequences.
But again I recognize that that is the way you get these things done.
I’d love to see a baker with a moral code that forbids them from baking.
No, he has a moral code that forbids him from doing anything, no matter how small, that might in any way facilitate non-Heteronormative activities. It’s a stupid moral code, and one that should be legally incompatible with running a public accommodation such a a bakery, but it is a moral code.
I’m going to have to repeat this point for effect. I 100% agree with this line. The reasons I’m repeating it and emphasizing it is for a simple reason. We see far too many Republicans (in this case primarily the political branch) embracing stupid, bigoted, or outright insane ideologies for the purpose of gaining and retaining power. It is worth remembering that the body they represent -may- be holding these beliefs unironically. It doesn’t mean we can’t, or shouldn’t fight them, but to automatically say they’re entirely hypocritical puts us in the same boat as those that say everyone who supports a left-wing cause is just virtue signaling.
And @needscoffee, if everyone was capable of being Rosa Parks, none of us would need to. 
We can’t all be heroes all of the time, and @Buck_Godot can of course feel personally uncomfortable about ‘trapping’ Mr. Phillips. It speaks against a lifetime’s training of ‘play fair’, ‘no tattling’ or ‘do unto others’. Sentiments that work great for the playground, even if it’s not always adhered to even there. To be uncomfortable with acting unfairly, or with bad intentions is GOOD - we don’t want to be zealots. Using that discomfort as an excuse to ignore the problem is the bigger issue, and it’s clear that B_G has not done so.
What if the issue was that the baker wouldn’t serve Blacks or Asians or Jews? I don’t think anyone would be feeling the same discomfort with forcing a case (if that’s indeed what happened). That’s the process by which laws are challenged.
If the baker refused to put mixed race little statues on the top of the cake, I think everyone would say he was wrong. The Bible was certainly used to say that races should not mix. I don’t see this as different even if it is his religious belief.
From what I’ve read he had no problem making the cake as requested until he found out the customer was transgender
You’re actually replying to a post about a different case – one where a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. That post is about three years old.
The transgender coming out cake is a new lawsuit that reawakened this thread.
But the new board software still awakens me from my slumber. And this thread actually is about the transgender cake, not the wedding cake. It just took a while to work through the system.
But yes, the wedding cake case had some possible ambiguity that this one doesn’t seem to have. I suspect this ruling isn’t the end of it though.
Ah, thanks. I didn’t read it from the beginning.
Anyway, welcome back from your long nap!
Not long at all. Just only checking in occasionally when procrastinating. Bit off more client work than I can easily chew.
I suspect tomorrow’s WSJ opinion section will have some noise about this, which I’m interested to read. Seems slam-dunk for the would-be buyer, but I’m notoriously uncreative and askew from reality when it comes to court cases. (People who think I’m full of it should bookmark that sentence.)
Relying on the findings of a Denver judge in a 2021 trial in the dispute, the appeals court said Phillips’ shop initially agreed to make the cake but then refused after Scardina explained that she was going to use it to celebrate her transition from male to female.
Is this idiot ever gonna learn that he can’t refuse to create cakes because of why but not what?
Didn’t the baker actually win at SCOTUS? I don’t think you learn your lesson by winning.
I thought so too. I am not sure what distinction is being made here (transgender vs gay?..I dunno). I can’t see the SCOTUS changing its opinion on this.
IANAL by any stretch of the imagination, but what springs to mind is the potential difference in “speech” implications between “refusing to make a wedding cake for a couple whose marriage one disapproves of” and “backing out of an existing agreement to make a cake for a customer because you don’t like the type of celebration that you just found out she plans to use it for”.
That’s not restricting one’s product line, that’s discriminating against the particular customer.
Yes, I think this is a potential distinction, but this SCOTUS may just gloss over it and hand the baker another victory.
BTW this case is still making its way through the Colorado, not federal, courts of appeals and next stop is the state Supreme. Any SCOTUS action may be years ahead.
And as for “well this is not a religious ceremony” , as I understand the underlying position of the baker is apparently that his beliefs forbid him in any way abetting any LGBTQetc.-affirming activity.
Seems though like that his actions having become nationally known has not hurt his business enough. Probably helps that he gets outside support for his legal costs.