Jack Phillips has another day in Colorado court over discrimination

The Colorado Supreme Court will not advance any cases against Lakewood Baker

Re: “Colorado court throws out 4-3 decision in transgender cake case on technicalities”, News Oct 9

Finally, closure in this case. I’ve always been of the opinion that Autumn Scardina, knowing about the first case against Jack Phillips, deliberately filed the lawsuit against him to prove a point. Society seems to have lost the ability to respect someone’s beliefs, be they religious, political, or any other topic you want to name. Personally, if an establishment doesn’t want your business, you can always go to another that accommodates you. It’s that simple. I’m sure there are quite a few bakeries that could have created what she wanted. Instead, we look for the first attorney who will be most willing to waste the court’s time on something that is basically frivolous and causes unnecessary hardship to everyone involved. It’s time to return some civility to our society. There is a serious shortage.

Milly Tenhaeff Valley, Colorado Springs

Jack Phillips, a Christian baker in Lakewood, refused to make a cake for a transgender customer, just as he refused to make a cake for a gay customer’s wedding in 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court United had no problem ruling on the 2012 case and finding Colorado’s civil rights commissioners had violated the Free Exercise Clause with their hostility toward Phillips’ religion. However, for some reason, the Colorado Supreme Court refused to rule on this new Phillips case on transgender discrimination.

In the majority opinion, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Melissa Hart wrote, “The underlying constitutional question raised by this case has become the focus of intense public debate: how governments should balance the rights of transgender people to be free from discrimination in places of public accommodation with the rights of religious employers when operating in the public marketplace?” Judge Hart then stated, “We cannot answer that question.” If the Supreme Court of Colorado can’t answer that question, so who can? The US Supreme Court had no problem answering the exact same question in Phillips in 2012. Wake up, Judge Hart. Do your job and answer it question

This is a case of clear discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provided: “All persons have the right to the full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages and accommodations of any place of public accommodation …” like the Lakewood bakery.

Michael J. Noonan, Georgetown

The Denver Division of Elections is not adequately informing the electorate

Re: “Voices from voters: You can weigh in on election coverage,” September 29 news