Supreme Court dismisses case against baker who refused to bake trans woman’s cake

Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop Photo: Screenshot

This week, the Colorado Supreme Court avoided ruling on whether a Christian baker violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act by refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a transgender woman’s transition. They did so by filing the case solely for procedural and administrative reasons.

the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardinahad been sentenced in lower courts in 2021 when they ruled that Jack Phillips, the bakery’s owner, violated the rights of attorney Autumn Scardina by refusing to bake her a cake because of her trans identity in 2019.

However, the state Supreme Court argued that Scardina was ineligible to sue Phillips the way he did. He had initially filed a complaint with the Colorado Division of Civil Rights after Phillips’ refusal. The Division ruled that Phillips had discriminated against Scardina, prompting him to quickly sue the Division for alleged anti-Christian discrimination. Scardina had tried to intervene in this case, but was rebuffed.

The division reached a settlement with Phillips privately, which in part involved dropping Scardina’s discrimination claims. This was done without her involvement, prompting her to file a separate discrimination lawsuit.

However, the Colorado Supreme Court argued that Scardina should have filed an appeal with the Court of Appeals, rather than filing an entirely different lawsuit that then escalated through the courts. This despite rulings by both the District Court and the Court of Appeals that Phillips had discriminated against Scardina. The Supreme Court says these rulings should not have happened.

“Regardless of the merits of Scardina’s claim, the district court here was not permitted to consider his case … We therefore vacate the orders of both the division and the district court and dismiss this case. In doing so, we express no opinion on the merits of Scardina’s claims, and nothing in the current holding alters the protections afforded by CADA,” writes the 4-3 opinion authored by Justices Melissa Hart, Monica M. Márquez, Brian D. Boatright, and Maria E. Berkenkotter.

Three justices—Judges Carlos A. Samour, Richard L. Gabriel and William W. Hood III—dissented, arguing that their colleagues had essentially allowed the discrimination to occur and tacitly supported Phillips’ actions , despite his claims. on the contrary

“The majority now declines to reach the merits of this case. Instead, it erroneously gives Masterpiece and Phillips a procedural pass,” Judge Gabriel wrote on behalf of the three judges. “It does so by concluding that the district court lacked authority to hear Scardina’s case, based on the reasoning presented by either party in this case (even after we issued an order requiring additional information on the issue of the court’s authority) and all but ignoring the argument actually presented to us by the parties, namely that Scardina had not exhausted his administrative remedies.(To the extent that the majority addresses the argument of the exhaustion presented by Masterpiece and Phillips, rejects this argument).

“I am concerned that Masterpiece and Phillips will interpret today’s ruling as a vindication of their refusal to sell non-expressive products without intrinsic meaning to customers who are members of a protected class (here, the LGBTQ+ community),” says Gabriel .

Phillips made headlines in 2012 after he refused to bake a cake for a gay couple getting married, arguing that doing so would endorse their marriage. This case was settled out of court.

In the current case, he was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a far-right legal organization and hate group designated by the Southern Poverty Law Center known for opposing LGBTQ+ rights in many different legal cases, including oppose Title IX rules protecting trans youth. , defending conversion therapy and defending healthcare discrimination against trans people.

“Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through the courts for over a decade. It’s time to leave him alone. Free speech is for everyone. As stated by the US Supreme Court 303 Creativethe government can’t force artists to express messages they don’t believe in,” said ADF Senior Counsel Jake Warner, referring to a similar case of anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination on which ADF served as legal counsel on which judgment was given in his favor.

“In this case, a lawyer demanded that Jack create a custom cake that celebrates and symbolizes the transition from male to female. Because this cake expresses a message, and because Jack cannot express that message to anyone, the government can’t punish Jack for refusing to express it. The First Amendment protects that decision,” Warner added.

Scardina’s attorney John McHugh said News from the Court“We are very disappointed that the Colorado Supreme Court has decided to avoid the merits of this issue by inventing an argument that neither party raised. It is a fundamental principle of our legal system that courts decide issues based on the arguments presented by the parties. That the court abandons this principle today does a disservice not only to Ms. Scardina, but to the entire state.”

McHugh said he is considering other legal options for the case.

Subscribe to LGBTQ Nation Newsletter and be the first to hear about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities around the world.

Don’t forget to share: