Christian Baker Gets Hit With Third Lawsuit to ‘Rehash Old Claims’: ‘Desperate Attempt to Harass’

Colorado Christian baker Jack Phillips can’t seem to get away from lawsuits as a customer is knocking him with a third one over the baker’s past refusal to cook up an LGBTQ custom cake.

The conservative owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado found himself under fire in previous years for his refusal to bake a same-sex marriage cake in 2012, and later a gender transition cake, due to his religious beliefs.

He faced two previous lawsuits, but in February, the latest case was dropped after the two attorneys came to an agreement, as IJR Red previously reported.

“I have and will always serve everyone who comes into my shop; I simply can’t celebrate events or express messages that conflict with my religious beliefs,” Phillips said at the time, adding, “Today is a win for freedom.”

However, Phillips is facing criticism once again over what his senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom Jim Campbell claims to be used to “rehash old claims.”

The third lawsuit was filed on June 5 against the Colorado baker by the same person who filed the previous lawsuit regarding the transition cake from male to female, Autumn Scardina.

“A new lawsuit has been filed against Masterpiece Cakeshop that appears to largely rehash old claims,” Campbell told The Daily Signal.

Scardina is going after Phillips in the latest lawsuit over discrimination and unfair trade practices because, as one of Scardina’s attorneys, Paula Greisen, told CBS4:

“The dignity of all citizens in our state needs to be honored. Masterpiece Cakeshop said before the Supreme Court they would serve any baked good to members of the LGBTQ community. It was just the religious significance of it being a wedding cake. We don’t believe they’ve been honest with the public.”

However, Campbell said that the newest lawsuit is “yet another desperate attempt to harass cake artist Jack Phillips” and “it stumbles over the one detail that matters most: Jack serves everyone; he just cannot express all messages through his custom cakes.”

Responses

  1. A similar issue came up 35 years ago in a marketing class I was taking in a very liberal college in California. There were businesses in the local area that were refusing to do business with certain groups of people based on religious principles and the liberal students were up in arms about it. The marketing professor laid out this hypothetical situation. An artist works for three years and creates 10 beautiful pieces of art and a local art gallery wants him to sell them at a big gala they have planned for him. Five minutes after the gallery opens a major automobile manufacturer wants to purchase all 10 to feature in a commercial. The artist is ecstatic. However, right before the purchase is made the auto manufacturer says they are going to hang them up and have their new car drive right through all 10 paintings and destroy them. The question is then posed…does the artist have the right to refuse to sell the paintings? Almost all of the students started yelling about the artists life work and he put his blood and soul into those paintings so he shouldn’t have to sell them. The professor stood up there and said one word. Hypocrites…dismissed the class and walked out. I will never forget it.

  2. He needs to file a counter claim affirming harassment. He starts sueing them and winning they will back off

  3. Enough of this nonsense! They don’t want his cakes, just want to be king size a-holes!

    1. oh they want his cake alright! also his cookies, his counter, his ovens and every penny he has ever earned due to his GOD GIVEN talents. It is pure hatred for his Christian rights. An attempt to force his labor … and enslavement of his Christianity

  4. I’m old enough to remember when who one chose to have sex with was about acceptance and tolerance.

    Now it’s about fascism. One MUST acknowledge that their demands supersede your rights and submit to the agenda of our new LGBTBBQ masters. Resistance is futile (Borg collective).

    I’ve asked before if those pushing the new oppression understand that they are making more enemies than friends. I have LGTBBQ friends who say, “This is not who we are.” Really? Then speak out against this fascistic overreach.

  5. Just another example of the extreme left trying to force acceptance on others. But you know if this was a Muslim baker refusing to do a custom cake for a jewish person these same people would be defending the Muslim baker.

    1. would never happen, God has food prep laws that forbid that purchase by any practicing Jew

  6. This lawsuit might no help “the mayor” getting votes from anyone except the far left! What say you??

  7. Whether or not the baker supports LGBTQ rights is insignificant. This is a matter of the difference between an artistic product and a commercial product. The baker himself said he would serve all customers, and sell them any product that he makes in a standard form. Those would be considered commercial products. Artistic products are made to at least partially reflect the maker, because they come from internal talent and creativity. Anyone can pull a lever, push a button, and send another cookie-cutter commercial product into the world. Artistry cannot be forced to adhere to someone else’s beliefs, because it would be a betrayal of one’s own identity. If the courts had ruled against a baker, it would have made human thoughts and beliefs subject to federal regulation. An satanic group could order that same Christian baker to make a cake depicting Jesus as a chained and crazed demon. A Nazi group could order a Jewish artist to design a swastika banner with hateful messages. This extends far beyond support of LGBTQ rights (which I do, but as I said, it hears little significance to the situation), and must be treated as a serious matter.

  8. When the public owns the bakery and takes all of the business risks of doing business, then and only then can the public demand service.

    In as much as this is an independently owned business the owner of that business that suffers loss or gain can choose to serve anyone he or she desires for what ever the owner decides.

    This IS NOT a rights issue to serve anyone but a rights issue to allow the owner who owns a business to determine how HE wants to run his business that gets no financial monies from the government/state to keep the business running. As long as the business is not involved with government, other than to pay quarterly taxes, it’s a privately owned business and what the owner, not the public, decides is how his business is to be run.

    If THAT offends you, shop and buy yourself from someone else.

  9. I think the baker should countersue the idiot that filed the compliant for harassment. Sue him for everything he owns.The issue has been adjudicated twice. This is an open and shut case of harassment. Mr. Phillips as stated that he would wait on anyone who came into his store and sell them anything he had in the cases. He said he would refuse to ‘create’ a special cake for those mentally ill people who push the LBTGQ agenda, and the courts have ruled in his favor.

  10. THIS ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT HAPPEN. CHARGE THEM WITH HARASSMENT!

  11. Countersue the idiot!!! Note to the Court that this is the exact same “guy” who sued this Baker and Lost! Same issue means harassing and frivolous Lawsuit, which means this Baker Can (and should!) Countersue!!!

  12. There’s no other baker in all of Colorado? Leave this man alone, it’s against his beliefs, he has the right to deny services if he doesn’t agree with it. They are doing this just to put themselves in the papers. I have news for you LGBTQRXYZ folks, most people don’t agree with you.

  13. those suing …..should be accountable for all court costs….both sides lawyer fees and all other related costs…. if & when they lose ………tell em up front……stop all this crap……..

    1. That’s not enough. This is a second suit by the same plaintiff. There should be a punitive judgement against the plaintiff, pay not just all fees, but an additional amount as well. This is malicious harassment.

Comments are closed.