Colorado’s Supreme Court dismisses suit against baker who wouldn’t make a cake for transgender woman
The Colorado Supreme Court dismissed on procedural grounds, a lawsuit filed against a Christian bakery who refused to make a cake for transgender women. The justices refused to comment on the issues of free speech that attracted national attention.
Autumn Scardina, an attorney from Denver, sued Jack Phillips in 2017 for refusing to bake a pink and blue cake to celebrate the gender transition of her client.
In a 6-3 majority, the Justices stated that Scardina hadn’t exhausted all her options before filing her suit to seek redress in another court.
Justice Melissa Hart, writing for the majority, wrote: “We express our no opinion on the merits”
|
Jake Warner, Phillips’ lawyer, with the Arizona firm Alliance for Defending Freedom had argued in front of the high court, that the actions of the baker were protected as free speech, and that what Scardina was going to do with her cake mattered for Phillips’ rights.
Warner stated Tuesday that those who disagreed against him had pursued his client and ridiculed him for years.
Warner declared, “Enough is Enough.” “Jack’s been in court for more than a decade. It’s time for him to be left alone.
John McHugh expressed his disappointment at the news and said that he would be evaluating any legal options left.
McHugh stated that “the Colorado Supreme Court chose to ignore the merits of this case by inventing a claim no party made.”
The minority justices faulted this ruling, saying it gave Phillips a “procedural pass.” They pointed out that all factfinders and judicial officers who heard the case found the conduct of the baker violated Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.
They also expressed concern that Phillips might interpret the ruling as vindication.
Hart, however, wrote that the ruling does not alter the protections provided by the anti-discrimination laws.
This case was one of several in Colorado that pitted LGBTQ+ civil right against First Amendment rights. Phillips won a partial victory in 2018 before the U.S. Supreme Court for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.
Numerous attorneys general of Republican-led states submitted a joint brief to support Phillips.
Scardina was backed by groups of advocates who warned that any ruling of a violation of the First Amendment would limit Colorado’s prohibitions against discrimination.
Scardina tried to order her wedding cake on the day that the U.S. Supreme Court said it would hear Phillips appeal in the case. Scardina claimed she was challenging Phillips’ claim that he will serve LGBTQ+ clients and denied that her attempt to order the cake is a setup for litigation.
Before bringing her lawsuit against Phillips, Scardina filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the State of Colorado, who found probable cause that he had discriminated against her.
In March 2019, attorneys for the state, Phillips and Scardina agreed to settle both cases in a settlement that Scardina wasn’t involved with. She brought the lawsuit on her own against Phillips, Masterpiece Cakeshop and other parties.
In their ruling on Tuesday, the justices stated that this is when the case went in a wrong direction. Scardina had to take the settlement between the state and Phillips straight to the court of appeals in the state, the justices said.
It was instead taken to a judge in the state, who ruled that Phillips violated the anti-discrimination laws of the state by refusing to bake a cake for Scardina. The judge said that the case concerned a refusal to sell a particular product and not forced speech.
The Colorado Court of Appeals sided also with Scardina and ruled that the pink-and blue cake — for which Scardina had not requested any writing — did not qualify as speech protected under the First Amendment.
