The Colorado Supreme Court on Tuesday fired A Christian bakery refused to provide cake for a transgender woman's celebration.
Attorney Autumn Scardina sued Jack Phillips, the owner of Denver-based Masterpiece Cake Shop, alleging he refused to provide a cake for her gender transition celebration. Phillips said it violated his religion.
In a 6-3 decision, the court did not consider the merits of the claim, but determined that Scardina had not exhausted her options to seek relief in another court before filing suit.
Phillips gained national attention in 2012 when she was sued by the U.S. Supreme Court for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding.
On the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips' case, Scardina allegedly called to request a custom cake to celebrate her gender transition. Phillips' attorney said she then called again and requested another custom cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana.
When Phillips refused, Scardina filed an anti-discrimination complaint with the Colorado Department of Civil Rights and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Mr. Phillips then sued both the department and the commission in federal court, claiming that providing Mr. Scardina with cake violated his religion, according to court documents.
Ms. Scardina attempted to intervene in the federal lawsuit, but a district court denied her motion. Instead, the two organizations dismissed her administrative complaint in a confidential settlement, but failed to issue the necessary order to explain why.
Jake Warner, Phillips' attorney with the Arizona-based law firm Alliance for Defending Freedom, said Phillips is an artist and cannot be forced to conform to something he “doesn't believe in.” said. He noted that Phillips has been under legal supervision for 10 years.
“Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through the courts for over a decade. It's time to leave him alone,” Warner announced. statement.
Ms Scardina's lawyer expressed disappointment with the High Court's decision.
“The Colorado Supreme Court decided to circumvent the merits of this issue by inventing arguments that were not raised by any of the parties,” John McHugh said, according to the newspaper. Associated Press.
The dissenting minority agreed with Mr. McHugh that the decision adopted an “unprecedented administrative regime.”
“The impact of the majority's decision is problematic on a number of levels. Procedurally, the majority has adopted an unprecedented administrative structure under which, once a hearing on the merits is set, , the district court can never hear the matter, and the administrative agency can never resolve the petitioner's objections, no matter how unreasonable, and must litigate instead. In my opinion, neither the law nor sound policy supports such a conclusion.”
