https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/masterpiece-cakeshop-owner-sues-colorado-after-denying-trans-womans-cake-request_us_5b744f97e4b0df9b093b6457


Months after winning a Supreme Court case over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, Colorado baker Jack Phillips is setting up for another legal showdown.

Phillips, ordered by the state Civil Rights Commission into mediation with a trans customer of his Masterpiece Cakeshop for whom he had refused to bake a cake, sued Colorado officials in federal court on Tuesday, claiming they violated his rights to freedom of speech and religion.

“Colorado has renewed its war against him by embarking on another attempt to prosecute him,” the lawsuit alleges.

The lawsuit cites Phillips’ narrow Supreme Court victory in June that said the state Civil Rights Commission displayed anti-religious attitudes toward the baker, violating his rights, in a case involving his refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex couple.

The new case centers on Autumn Scardina’s order for a cake from Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop in June 2017 with a pink interior and blue exterior to celebrate the anniversary of her coming out as a transgender woman. Phillips refused to make the cake, saying “it would have celebrated messages contrary to his religious belief that sex ― the status of being male or female ― is given by God, is biologically determined,” his lawsuit says.

Scardina filed a complaint with the state Civil Rights Commission, claiming discrimination based on her sex. The commission found probable cause that Phillips violated an anti-discrimination law that prohibits businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. It ordered the two parties into mediation.

Phillips argues in his lawsuit, which names Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) and Civil Rights Commission members, that the Supreme Court ruling allows him to decline customers for religious reasons. The court, however, did not address whether religious objectors to same-sex relationships can duck anti-discrimination laws and refuse to serve to LGBTQ customers.

“The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs,” said Kristen Waggoner, an attorney of the anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom, which is representing Phillips.

A spokesperson for the Anti-Violence Project said the denial of services to LGBTQ community members fuels disrespect and violence.

“This is a concerted effort by Phillips, in concert with designated hate group Alliance Defending Freedom, to push anti-LGBTQ discrimination under the guise of so-called religious freedom,” the spokesperson, Eliel Cruz, told HuffPost. “These continued infringements on LGBTQ people’s access to public goods and services cultivates a culture of violence against us by promoting a narrative that LGBTQ people are less than. Sexual orientation or gender identity should not prohibit anyone from being treated with dignity and respect at any establishment.”


So what does medical science say...?
https://bigthink.com/mike-colagrossi/transgender-brains-more-closely-resemble-brains-of-the-sex-they-align-with-rather-than-what-they-were-born-with

From genetics to brain activity, scientists are delving into the complicated cultural, neurological and biological aspects of sex and gender. Public discourse can be divisive and often ends up muddling the real scientific inquiry into this subject. It’s a widely interdisciplinary field with many different voices contributing to understanding it in a variety of ways. For example, some people like, Siddhartha Mukherjee, physician and author believes that genes are highly influential in determining attributes of gender and sex identity. He states:

“It is now clear that genes are vastly more influential than virtually any other force in shaping sex identity and gender identity—although in limited circumstances a few attributes of gender can be learned through cultural, social, and hormonal reprogramming.”

Others believe that they’ve found compelling evidence by studying brain activity in transgender people that closely resembles cisgender people they identify with more than their assigned sex at birth.

A study led by a Belgian University found that brain activity correlated to this neurological hypothesis.

Julie Bakker, who led the research, utilized 160 MRI scans of transgender people diagnosed with gender dysphoria when they were either kids or in their teens. These scans also measured the brain’s microstructures with a technique called diffusion tensor imaging.

After all of these scans were made, they were then compared with people of the same age who had not been diagnosed with gender dysphoria. The study found that transgender boys’ and transgender girls’ brain activity corresponded to both cisgender boys and girls. The MRI tests examined brain activity after an exposure to a steroid and measured gray matter as well.

Bakker believes that this research could be used to help children at an earlier day who’re diagnosed with gender dysmorphia. Bakker stated:

"Although more research is needed, we now have evidence that sexual differentiation of the brain differs in young people with GD, as they show functional brain characteristics that are typical of their desired gender.”

The study’s results aligned with previous studies after it was presented at the European Society of Endocrinology. The analysis further revealed that these neurological differences are detectable at a younger age. Scientists believe that with this new research they’ll be able to offer better advice to young people with GD as this is estimated to affect one percent of the population according to the Gender Identity Development Service.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2018 08:04PM by anybody.

Well, if anything, this might be a case the Supremes can actually make a definitive ruling on, instead of the "punt" they took on the first one.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission looks to have handled this one properly this time, so the Supremes can't do what they did last time.

Of course, a new Justice might change the outcome...

Me, I'll be pleased when people start treating all other human beings like...well, human beings. Instead of being self-righteous jerks like Phillips. No matter what SCOTUS does.

Agreed on all counts.

But you knew that already.

ban cakes ~

In before Ziller bans cakes.

Too late!

In before Ziller bans donuts.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2018 09:06PM by Lot's Wife.

~in b4 ziller bans bans

The baker can't make a pink cake with blue frosting? He doesn't seem like a very competent baker.

HAhahahahahahaha! donuts and pink & blue cakes! Two laugh out loud posts! Thanks!!!

Seriously, that's what the customer wanted. A pink cake with blue frosting. I guess that was too difficult a request. /s

Or was that too difficult?

IN ~ on donut thred !!! ~


in b 4 ~ an Ode to Donuts ~


without donuts ~


there wood bee no donut-holes ~


an donut-holes is a sign God loves us an wants us to be happy ~

Hopefully these bakers are carefully scrutinizing the purpose of these cakes and the cakes themselves- obvious warning signs include pink triangles and rainbow flags.

God forbid any of them say ‘fuck it, it’s a cake not an expression of my political or religious ideologies.’



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2018 09:38PM by midwestanon.

Silly Me!


I thought, econ 101 type stuff, that a BUSINESS was in place to SERVE THE PUBLIC!

my how times have Changed!

Still my biggest pet peeve with this stuff is why people go there asking someone who hates then openly to bake them a wedding cake, obviously just looking for a chance to litigate and have their day in the sun. Just go somewhere else and then give a lot of public endorsement to the person who will do it.

You are the type of person who gets branded as being "reasonable". It's a stigma. Which is almost a stigmata!! No one wants to shake hands with you in either case.

No donuts for you, Mr. O'Dawg.

Unless Ms. Saucie has some in the fridge.

No, actually I'm just the kind who likes to stir up trouble. I just don't equate someone baking a one-of-a-kind wedding cake with school or public transportation integration, etc. And it's just my opinion, I do see all y'all's side of it too.

I'm just so tired of the wedding cake thing overshadowing more important issues and giving the teabaggers something to scream religious persecution about. I don't believe they really wanted those people to bake their wedding cake. I'd never want someone to feel forced to make me something special that is a celebration of a happy day. I'd want it to be someone who could be happy for me and proud to put their talent to use to make something special.

I don't think that is a good principle.

It implies that Rosa Parks should have gone to the back of the bus, the Freedom Riders should have stayed at their liberal Northeastern colleges, and on September 10, 1963 those 20 African American kids should not have crossed the tracks. It implies that Ruth Bader Ginsburg should not have gone into law, whence she would later write much of the Brown v. Board of Education opinion and later still achieve a shrinking of the gap between male and female rights.

The liberation of unpopular groups doesn't happen by itself. It happens because obnoxious individuals choose to do things that make other people uncomfortable. Think of John Dehlin, Kate Kelly, Sam Young, and others: it is those who are controversial, or even court controversy, who accelerate the pace of historical change.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/15/2018 10:51PM by Lot's Wife.

Thank you LW

So easy to see the ones supposedly ruffling the feathers as the problem when in fact they are the impetus for change that creates more equality--also known as opportunity.

From what I have read I believe the Rosa Parks event was planned and was in fact a second attempt as someone had already done the same but didn't get the impact necessary.

Yes, Parks was an activist and was trying to stir up trouble. Another damn uppity woman.

Can you explain the correlation? I don't get it.

A private baker being asked to do something unique for one person, and refusing to do it, doesn't seem to me the same as a bus driver being asked to treat all people on their bus the same way.

If the baker had already baked cakes and put them on display for sale, and then refused to sell one to a customer because they were transgender, then your analogy would make sense to me.

In both cases someone perceives something as unconstitutional, intentionally creates an issue to test that proposition, and forces the issue into the court system.

Your perception differs. You think the two cases are dissimilar and hence that the case should not proceed. So far the courts have disagreed: even the Supreme Court felt it important enough to consider, although the first case was not sufficiently focused on the key issue. So now the supremes will get the second chance they signaled they wanted.

"In both cases someone perceives something as unconstitutional, intentionally creates an issue to test that proposition, and forces the issue into the court system."

Great point. I wasn't focused on that aspect. It makes sense that in both cases the person feels like their rights are being violated and so they create an issue that can then be escalated for adjudication.

I think what I'm trying to say, and not very well, is that I'm all for the supreme court forcing a baker to sell products on public display to anyone regardless of who they are, or what they stand for.

If a Jewish baker puts cakes on display, she should have to sell that cake to anyone who has sufficient legal tender to pay for it. If she refuses to sell a displayed caked to a man with a swastika tattoo, simply because he's a nazi, and for no other reason, then the supreme court has the right to say: you must sell that cake to that customer.

However, if a nazi walks into a bakery and demands the baker create a cake decorated with a swastika, with the words: "the holocaust is fake news", I don't think she should have to do it. I think she has the right to say no, and I don't think the supreme court has the right to say: you must bake that cake for that customer.

That's where I think there nuance here. The Rosa Parks situation, or the Woolworths lunch counter, those are akin to cakes on display.

That cake maker also will not sell chocolate cakes with white frosting to black people.

Nor should he sell angel food cakes to the BYU BONER! ... That little devil!

Ha ha.

And no Devil's Food cakes for Christians!

Marble cake for mixed marriages only.

This is going to be great. At the rate we're going one will need to prove ancestry, sexual preference, a photograph of their genitalia, religious affiliation, political party, and true hair color in order to get a custom cake.

Or just go to a different bakery, right? Seems simpler :)

We're not after simpler. We are after equality. We're after decency. We are after our rights. Rights that should come naturally and not have to be forced.

You just don't get it. Just cuz we're getting jokey on this thread does not mean an of it is okay. I'm an old gay man who has seen it all and I'm just sick of this crap.

D&D - I'm an old, straight man, but I get where you're coming from.

My question is why one would want a cake from this bakery knowing what the buffoon who owns it would probably add as ingredients...nothing deadly I'm sure, but what about the probability that they've probably at least spit in it?



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2018 02:12PM by captainklutz.

Captain,

If you'll forgive my interjecting myself.

I don't think the customer had any intention of eating the cake. I think the whole point is simply to create a conflict that can be adjudicated. It is like Rosa Parks, who only succeeded in creating a bus issue on her second try.

Sometimes people precipitate these sorts of things in order to get an issue to the supreme court where it can be tested. The price of the cake is meaningless relative to what the customer hopes the supreme court will decide.

For the exact same reason that black people wanted to eat at the Woolworths lunch counter, even though the food was not that good, and there were other places they could have lunch.

Good question. Lot's Wife pretty much nailed the deal. I wouldn't want the cake from them. It's not about the cake.

It's about the same reason Sammy Davis Jr. didn't want to go through the kitchen anymore at the casino to meet up with the Rat Pack to perform---they came in the front door.

I wouldn't want a cake from someone who didn't want to bake it for me. But I should be able to get one if I wanted----LIKE anybody else.

I personally sell our product to the religious right who want to take away my rights. Because they should be able to buy our product--like anybody else. We're open to the public after all.

I get what you folks are saying, but isn't it better to know who the jackassii are who WOULD add extra ingredients and just go somewhere else?

I know it's the principle but it would be more important to me to know who not to do business with. Personally, I wouldn't go to this particular bakery for even a donut.

I honestly don't know what to do here. The jerk shouldn't be able to refuse to provide a service, but on the other hand if he's going to do something to my food, I sure as hell wouldn't eat it.

Done and Done, you should charge the righties double!

When you walk into a random bakery, do you know who they will deny service to before you order that doughnut? Generally speaking, you don't.

In the past, this very baker has said “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, cookies, brownies,” (https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/16/us/supreme-court-baker-same-sex-marriage.html) This person asked for a birthday cake and was denied. The owner of the bakery is moving the goalposts because they gained a little bit of ground with the Supreme Court case.

Maybe this person targeted this bakery on purpose to force a legal confrontation, or not. I don't know, and others have pointed out, that's irrelevant. They were denied service, it's now a legal issue.

Right now, an LGBT person never knows when they will be humiliatingly denied service at any given store. I agree that I would never go to a this store, just on principle, I simply wouldn't want them to get any of my money (and I'm a straight white guy, so in theory, I wouldn't have an issue if I did, but I still wouldn't want to support them). But what about the next bakery, flower shop, or photographer, or any number of service provider who might deny service to someone who falls in one of the LGBT categories. That ambiguity needs to stop. That's what anti-discrimination laws are for. If you open a store that serves the public, you serve all the public equally.

Why, in this day and age, this is a difficult thing, I can not understand.

I have no problem with having a middle ground requirement of providing already baked/displayed items such as cakes, cookies, brownies, etc. (every bakery has those), but giving the owner the right to accept or reject a CUSTOM MADE order for whatever reason whatsoever. I wouldn’t even require a reason…a simple yes or no. If the owner rejects enough orders, let word of mouth and the market decide if he stays in business or not. I wouldn’t be surprised if this is the direction the courts go.

As far as the LGBT community, if having custom made baked goods is so important, I would think they would open their own bakeries advertising that they cater to EVERYONE, but especially discriminated LGBT clients. Someone missing the boat here.

Discrimination is wrong. Period. It's not about going somewhere else. No one should have to. You can't just claim that "it goes against your religion" all of a sudden when you don't want to serve a member of the public. If you are going to go down that road, you can just claim that anyone "looks gay" or "might be mixed" or "looks like a t##@(y" so you don't have to serve them.

That doesn't wash in a free democratic society.

Here's Trevor Noah's example of how this kind of "discrimination" works...
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/emmbcg/the-daily-show-with-trevor-noah-putting-north-carolina-s-anti-lgbt-law-to-the-test

BTW, ever hear of this little gem?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Negro_Motorist_Green_Book



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2018 06:22PM by anybody.

If I could take issue with what you say, anybody, it's that generally you speak in black and white terms.

It wouldn't hurt to acknowledge this is a highly nuanced conversation we're all trying to have here.

On one hand you have the "if you own a bakery, you have to bake whatever the customer asks no matter what" camp.

On the other you have the "if you own a bakery, you should be able to decide what to bake or sell to anyone of your choosing for whatever reason you see fit" camp.

Neither of those choices is tenable. The solution is somewhere in the middle.

Also, I'd as soon look to Ja Rule for wise advice as I would Trevor Noah. :)

Did you even watch the video? That's what would happen.

You boomers are old enough to remember all of the problems with entertainment, sports, television shows etc had back in the 50s and 60s. What films were banned where? Who could be on stage with whom? Which players could be on the field in what state? What shows could be shown in which state? Where could you stay? Where could you eat? Where could you go to the bathroom? Which beaches or pools were restricted?

That was just race or ethnicity.

Religion would crank it up to a whole 'nother level.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/16/2018 07:42PM by anybody.

It's not about a cake. It's about the principle <sigh>.

There's no "middle ground" here.

That's why I mentioned "The Green Book."

That was reality and that's what society would go back to.

Discrimination is wrong and has no justification.

Funny that the story doesn't mention that the "trans customer" is a local lawyer (Autumn Charlie Scardina) who has been harassing the cake shop for a while with bogus orders.

Sounds like a good case for a bar complaint and possible disbarment.


>In September 2017, a caller asked Phillips to design a birthday cake for Satan that would feature an image of Satan smoking marijuana. The name “Scardina” appeared on the caller identification. A few days earlier, a person had emailed Jack asking for a cake with a similar theme — except featuring “an upside-down cross, under the head of Lucifer.” This same emailer reminded Phillips that “religion is a protected class.”

On the very day that Phillips won his case at the Supreme Court, a person emailed with yet another deliberately offensive design request:

I’m thinking a three-tiered white cake. Cheesecake frosting. And the topper should be a large figure of Satan, licking a 9″ black Dildo. I would like the dildo to be an actual working model, that can be turned on before we unveil the cake. I can provide it for you if you don’t have the means to procure one yourself.

And finally, two days later, a person identifying as “Autumn Marie” visited Phillips’s shop and requested a cake featuring a pentagram. According to ADF, “Phillips believes that person was Autumn Scardina.” <

(end quote)

https://hotair.com/archives/2018/08/15/masterpiece-cakeshop-comes-fire-colorado-officials/

Assuming that your source is credible (a perusal of other stories suggests it is right-wing fluff) and accepts what the baker says he "believes" is true (again, a significant assumption), your statement is legally irrelevant.

The question is whether denying Scardina the blue and pink cake on the basis of gender identity was constitutional. That Scardina may have been insistent on driving the issue into the court system, as Parks was with buses and Dehlin and Kelly were with the Mormon Church, may make her an annoying person but it is legally and constitutionally beside the point.

Disliking a person or her tactics is not a constitutional argument.

+1.0x10^09

Agree, it's interesting but irrelevant. I'm much more interested in what the supreme court will ultimately rule I'm compelled to do, regardless of how that ruling came to be.

What CAN I do?
What CAN'T I do?
What MUST I do?

or do you want anarchy?

That's what your argument boils down to.

I've heard the far-right "freedom of association" excuse before.

If you provide a service to "the public" that means EVERYONE.

You provide a service, you get paid. You don't have to be friends.

It's just business.

1. Despite your alluding to the religious freedom law, it was never invoked in this incident. Why do you cite this case as an example of this law when it was never used or even mentioned by the landlord?
2. Though this offense took place under the previous administration (which did nothing about it), HUD under the current administration is pursuing discrimination charges against the landlord. HUD seems to believe the Fair Housing Act was violated. Perhaps you can explain to HUD where they're wrong on this and how a state's religious freedom act will always overrule federal law.
3. Maybe just stick with the horrors faced by the millions of transgender people whose lives are reduced to tatters as they are daily victimized by bigoted bakers who refuse to create special cakes for them. We live in times where civil rights are threatened unlike any time in human history. The struggle is real, and we must all vow to never rest until every last human on earth has full and unfettered access to custom baked goods.

https://www.hud.gov/press/press_releases_media_advisories/HUD_No_18_026

https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/mississippi-landlord-charged-with-housing-discrimination/

BELDEN, Miss. (AP) — The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development is charging owners of a northeast Mississippi trailer park with illegal discrimination for evicting an interracial married couple and their children.

HUD said Thursday that Linda and Gene Baker wouldn’t rent a trailer in their Belden park to a couple after discovering one is African American.


The Clarion Ledger reported in 2016 that Gene Baker rented to Erica Flores Dunahoo before meeting her husband, Stanley Hoskins, who is black. Baker evicted the family after meeting Hoskins.

Baker told the Clarion Ledger he evicted the couple because “the neighbors were giving me such a problem.”

Housing is a special case since there are laws that forbid racial discrimination in that particular market.

There is, to the best of my knowledge, no corresponding law for baked goods. If that is correct, then the housing precedents don't apply and we are left waiting to see if the supremes feel that constitutional principles dictate a particular outcome for cakes, etc.

Another arbitrary discrimination law. Same thing, different era.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_Restriction_Act_1901#Dictation_test

I've never seen any theological argument that equates providing a service with sin.

I've been in many convenience stores run by Muslims that sell alcohol or Jewish owned supermarkets that sell pork.

And Marriott hotels still don't block porn.


https://qz.com/216328/how-marriots-owner-put-aside-his-mormon-beliefs-to-cash-in-on-the-lgbt-travel-market/



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 08/18/2018 01:18PM by anybody.

The cake thing again. Oh Lord, here we go. Let's make mountains out of molehills of sugar and flour.

Putting my hair up and taking my earrings off to put my two cents in here.

Firstly: I support anyone who identifies with LGBTQ .

Second: I believe a private business has the right to refuse service to anyone for ANY reason. Religious or otherwise.

Some will fall into the camp of how it is inhuman or unskilled to not give this trans customer her "coming out" cake order.

Some claim its in the same camp as Rosa Parks. (Rosa didn't have another bus to take by the way)

Some will call it discrimination to deny a service to someone with a lifestyle they disagree with. Owners SHOULD have the power to deny service if the service requested conflicts with the owners conscience.

Years ago, I worked for flower shop where a disgruntled ex wanted to sent dead roses to a lover who jilted her and another arrangement with flowers that appeared to be "bloodied" with a message that says "You are next". I brought up my concern to the owner of the shop and she said NO.
I had to inform the customer that we would not fulfilled the order. The customer went ballistic and threatened to sue for discrimination.

Some people do not truly understand what discrimination IS. While I understand that while many will come to the defense of this Trans customer for being denied I will not.

This customer KNEW the shop already had a reputation for being conservative and chose to stir the pot. There was intentional malicious to harm this business knowing they would be denied.
This decreased the petitioners credibility that they were harmed in the denial.

The other consideration is that when a customer has a choice to select a service and has several options...why go to the business you KNOW will deny you?

I don't go into a BBQ joint demanding they fix me a vegan meal. I don't go into a ecclesiastical run health clinic demanding an abortion. I don't go into a Synagogue demanding others say Jesus instead of Jehovah. I don't go into the Mormon church demanding they acknowledge me as an equal. I don't demand of other groups to cow-tow to ME and my needs when I have OTHER viable and happier options!

I have rights. I have protected rights. Does that mean I have the right to demand them from anyone or anywhere? NO.

We all have the right to sue over any reason. However, there is a possibility this person can be retained from filing if they are proven to have a string of frivolous lawsuits.

We live in a society of butt-hurt toddlers that want to scream
"No Fair" at any frivolous thing because they cant get whatever they want anytime.

If you really want to get back at a business for doing you wrong...try leaving a review in YELP. Stop wasting time and money on trying to get back at a business owner for not wanting to serve you. Take your money elsewhere...if a business does not have customers. Their business dies.

Guess what lawsuits do? Free advertisement and notoriety. Often the business prospers from the attention of the butt-hurt toddlers.

Have a nice day all,
RMM

A few observations. . .


--------------------
> Second: I believe a private business has the right
> to refuse service to anyone for ANY reason.
> Religious or otherwise.

Untrue. The three post-Civil War amendments to the constitution establish that race and other innate characteristics are subject to special scrutiny by the courts. This fact informs many laws. There are also laws regarding housing and other categories of goods and services in which discrimination over race, marital status, etc., has been prohibited. Even indirectly discouraging non-majority races from obtaining housing in a particular edifice is illegal, as our beloved president found when he lost several suits on that decades ago.



------------------
> Some claim its in the same camp as Rosa Parks.
> (Rosa didn't have another bus to take by the way)

Rosa Parks decided to provoke a conflict to make her point. She went on that bus on two different days. The first time no one forced her to the back of the bus, so she went a second time.

And in any case your point is not germane. You suggest, unintentionally, that if someone has no other bus (cake shop) to patronize, then the bus driver (proprietor) has to provide the transportation. But if that is true, then the bus driver (baker) doesn't have a right to refuse service after all.

Either there is a right to discriminate or there is not.



---------------------
> Some will call it discrimination to deny a service
> to someone with a lifestyle they disagree with.
> Owners SHOULD have the power to deny service if
> the service requested conflicts with the owners
> conscience.

See above. Your position, thankfully, is not the law.



------------
> Years ago, I worked for flower shop where a
> disgruntled ex wanted to sent dead roses to a
> lover who jilted her and another arrangement with
> flowers that appeared to be "bloodied" with a
> message that says "You are next". I brought up my
> concern to the owner of the shop and she said NO.
> I had to inform the customer that we would not
> fulfilled the order. The customer went ballistic
> and threatened to sue for discrimination.

Apples and oranges. You were not denying a service to a person whose lifestyle you disliked, let alone on the basis of innate characteristics like race or gender or gender identity.



-----------------
> Some people do not truly understand what
> discrimination IS. While I understand that while
> many will come to the defense of this Trans
> customer for being denied I will not.

That's fine. But you do not speak for society, which has expressed its views in the constitution and the laws. In this particular case the courts will decide where to draw the line irrespective of your, or my, views.



---------------------
> This customer KNEW the shop already had a
> reputation for being conservative and chose to
> stir the pot. There was intentional malicious to
> harm this business knowing they would be denied.
> This decreased the petitioners credibility that
> they were harmed in the denial.

Rosa Parks knew that eventually she would be harmed in a public bus. She had a legal and moral right to push the issue. Likewise, the gay customer of the instant bakery had every reason to bring the issue to a head. The fact that someone who discriminates really, really wants to discriminate does not mean he is free to do so.

"Officer! I know killing my neighbor's dog was illegal, but I really, really, REALLY wanted to do it." Good luck with that.



-------------------
> The other consideration is that when a customer
> has a choice to select a service and has several
> options...why go to the business you KNOW will
> deny you?

Why must you use this water fountain and this bathroom when others are available for your kind just behind the building?



---------------------
> We live in a society of butt-hurt toddlers that
> want to scream
> "No Fair" at any frivolous thing because they cant
> get whatever they want anytime.

It's called the "constitution" and "the laws." If you don't like the protection those institutions afford to individuals, perhaps you would feel more comfortable in Russia or North Korea, where there is little patience for "butt-hurt toddlers."



---------------------
> Guess what lawsuits do? Free advertisement and
> notoriety. Often the business prospers from the
> attention of the butt-hurt toddlers.

Then there is no problem, right? The petulant gay customer will enrich the anti-gay bakery and the latter will live happily ever after.

By your logic, the system works fine. We should encourage "butt-hurt toddlers" to challenge fine, upstanding bigots.