Quit Picking On Me!

Well stop discriminating against us!

Back in the news again Masterpiece Cakeshop has been sued for discrimination.

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner calls for second lawsuit from transgender woman to be dismissed
The Hill
By Marina Pitofsky
April 15, 2020

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, the baker involved in a Supreme Court case regarding his alleged refusal to design a wedding cake for a gay couple, has asked for a court judge to dismiss another case brought against him, this time by a transgender woman.

In a hearing Thursday, Phillips's attorneys requested that the Denver court dismiss a lawsuit brought to the District Court for the City and County of Denver by Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman who was allegedly denied service after she tried to order a pink and blue cake to celebrate both her birthday and transition, NBC News reported.

This is the second lawsuit that has been brought to court regarding the incident by Scardina.
[…]
"At some point, your honor, this must stop," he said, as the legal website Courthouse News reported. "Mr. Phillips just wants to get back to his life and make cakes."

You all probably remember the case, it was lauded by the conservatives as a victory to discriminate against us and fearsome defeat.

But lets look at the Supreme Court ruling. Oyez reported,

However, the Court stated that Phillips did not receive this neutral treatment, with members of the Commission showing clear and impermissible hostility toward his religious beliefs. The Court explained that commissioners' comments disparaging Phillips' beliefs and characterizing them as rhetorical were inappropriate, though these comments were not mentioned or disavowed in subsequent legal proceedings. The Court concluded that these comments cast doubt on the fairness of the Commission's consideration of Phillips' claims. The Court also pointed out that disparities between Phillips' case and those of other bakers with objections to making cakes with anti-gay messages, and who were victorious before the Commission, further reflected hostility toward the religious basis for Phillips' position.

So what does this mean?

It means that the ruling didn’t rule on “religious freedom” to discriminate but rather the court ruled that the decision by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was biased in their ruling that commission had applied in a neutral manner with regard to religion. Therefore the Supreme Court had not ruled that the  Colorado's public accommodations law violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

This means that this case will hopefully move forward.