Colorado Christian cakeshop sued a third time for discrimination.

He is being targeted again by the same piece of human waste which targeted him last time by asking for a cake celebrating their gender transition because they KNEW that he would refuse to make it. I just can't figure out why the useless pieces of crap in the Colorado government haven't learned their lesson, after Jack counter-sued them the last time around and all parties agreed to drop the case. Oh well, I look forward to this one being dropped just as quickly!

https://www.foxnews.com/us/colorado-christian-cakeshop-sued-discrimination

 

Gotta appease the pooftas mate...after all..they keep telling us theyre normal.....

 

if i was him i would not agree to drop the case this time tbh

 

I agree. It's time to end this nonsense.

 

Heck, his business is probably doing very well from all the free press about it.

He probably loves it.

If I lived in that area I would go buy a cake from him even though I don't need a cake.

 

Strange that right-wingers think a man's right to a cake he bakes is more important than a Woman's right to her own womb ... whatever.

 

He is a FAKE CHRISTIAN!!!A real Christian believes the same God who made him or her made every creature on the face of the earth,and the bible CLEARLY states,"what so ever you do to these the least of my brethren you also do unto me".

 

All they need to do is make a religion that says women are equal to men and have bodily autonomy.

The heads would explode.

 

Right wingers DO NOT in fact believe that abortion has anything to do with a woman's right to her own womb.

 

This time the CO government isn't going after him, it's a civil suit. He might have a better chance with a counter suit now that it's a civil suit.

 

Red herring.

 

i thought that this case was about particular words being put onto a cake for which I would side with the baker. But it appears that the customer just wanted one color on the inside and a different color on the outside. Why was this request refused?

 

Thanks, I missed this detail. This is one sad, low life piece of human waste with nothing better to do with HIS time! (not actually a woman.)

I will say though, that if Jack looses this case in a CO court, then it won't be much different to the CO government going after him.

Any idea what law a counter suit could be based on?

 

Where did you get this from?

 

Apart from the religious or whatever social background ... which is just ridiculous for me as an atheist ...

You are really a stupid country, if an owner of a shop, barber shop, bakery, bar or whatever you do not decide for yourself who he wants to have as a customer ... without the racist baseball bat trowel coming!
**** ... if I were a car salesman, then I can still tell who I want to sell the car and who does not. This is my business decision and nothing else!

 

From your link:

Scardina claims Phillips violated Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act and Consumer Protection Act for refusing to bake a "birthday cake" celebrating the plaintiff's gender transition, which was to be blue on the outside and pink on the inside, symbolizing a transition from male to female.

 

He had no trouble having him as a customer and would have baked any cake he wanted. He just wouldn't decorate it the way they wanted. If it wasn't illegal in Germany, what would you say about a person who walks into a bakery on April 20 and asked to bake a birthday cake with a swastika?

 

I think that you're saying that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone they want.

 

So it would express a gender transition?

 

Which means that it is discrimination. What would happen if parents wanted to celebrate their twin children's birthday, one being a boy and one being a girl, with a similar cake, blue on the inside and pink on the outside (stereotype colours for a boy & girl)?

Caveat : businesses should be allowed to serve or refuse any customers but the law says no

 

This sounds like a vexatious case on the face of it, though that doesn’t mean the underlying legal principle is wrong (as always, the devil is in the detail there). Hopefully the legal system will sort it out correctly.

It’s worth noting that none of this changes the rights and wrongs of the case which brought this store to the public attention in the first place though. The Commission grossly mishandled that case but it remains against the law in that jurisdiction to refuse to provide a service you otherwise provide on the basis of a customer’s (perceived) sexual orientation or gender, even if you are (or claiming to be) basing it on your personal religious beliefs. That will only change if the relevant laws were changed.

 

That wouldn't be expressing something that he would disagree with.

As in, it is your opinion that these laws are wrong?

 

What if Brad Pitt was the one who asked for a cake which expressed a gender transition?

 

It's the same cake = discrimination

Yes but I can see why they are in place

 

I don’t see the point in that abstract hypotheticals since it doesn’t address any of the complex specifics that are relevant. Again, the Devil is in the detail and we don’t have all the detail here.