|Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop|
Actually, Anthony Kennedy permitted this, by claiming that the Court couldn't reach the merits of the case but could say that the procedure in the original prosecution was biased.
But how can this prosecution be non-biased when the same people are going after him?
Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame is suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The Commission commenced new proceedings against Phillips on behalf of a transgender complainant just weeks after he prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court.
Phillips' attorneys say the Commission is engaged in a concerted campaign to destroy him, which is unlawful.
Jack Phillips, the Christian baker who prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court after declining to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, filed a lawsuit in federal court late Tuesday suing the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
"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 Alliance Defending Freedom attorney who represents Phillips. "Even though Jack serves all customers and simply declines to create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in violation of his deeply held beliefs, the government is intent on destroying him -- something the Supreme Court has already told it not to do."
|Charlie Craig and David Mullins lost the first case|
And here's the new cake that someone looking to file a complaint demanded he bake:One can be sure that the CCRC won't be putting it's previous nasty comments about Philip's that Kennedy based "his decision" on in any new complaints, but they are on record from the previous attempt, and it's a transparent attempt to bring back the suit under a new guise. I'm not an expert in the law, but there should be a way to sue the commissars for mischievous and malicious prosecution. And stick them for 3 X the attorneys fees as part of a RICO case or something.
On the same day the high court agreed to review the Masterpiece case, an attorney named Autumn Scardina called Phillips' shop and asked him to create a cake celebrating a sex transition. The caller asked that the cake include a blue exterior and a pink interior, a reflection of Scardina's transgender identity. Phillips declined to create the cake, given his religious conviction that sex is immutable, while offering to sell the caller other pre-made baked goods.And so the Civil Rights Commission is going after him again based on this very complainey complainant.
In the months that followed, the bakery received requests for cakes featuring marijuana use, sexually explicit messages, and Satanic symbols. One solicitation submitted by email asked the cake shop to create a three-tiered white cake depicting Satan licking a functional 9 inch dildo. Phillips believes Scardina made all these requests.
You might also find Ed Morrissey's take on it at Hot Air amusing: Retaliation? Masterpiece Cakeshop Comes Under Fire From Colorado Officials – Again
Looks like Colorado state officials have decided that the Masterpiece Cakeshop case doesn’t apply to, er … Masterpiece Cakeshop. Despite a ruling at the Supreme Court which established that the state of Colorado had unfairly targeted Jack Phillips for his religious beliefs, the state’s Civil Rights Commission has cited him for another violation. This time, the Christian baker refused to make a custom cake celebrating a gender transition, which the CCRC determined as a violation of the customer’s rights.
Alliance Defending Freedom has signed up once again for the sequel, Masterpiece Cakeshop II: Eclectic Boogaloo. Expect it to premier for Brett Kavanaugh sometime in 2020:
. . .
You know what Colorado desperately needs? Another baker. Is Jack Phillips the only person in the entire state making custom cakes? Is there no other person who can deliver the blue-on-pink experience in culinary art?
Apparently the CCRC doesn’t know of any other bakers for referrals, or they’re really desperate for some regulatory revenge. The complaint started in 2017 as Phillips’ earlier case wended through the appellate circuit, but the final determination was signed on June 28, 2018. That’s just 24 days after the Supreme Court let the CCRC have it with both barrels in its decision to overturn their previous ruling against Phillips. The 7-2 decision held that the CCRC was so obviously and offensively hostile to Phillips that its decision reeked of anti-religious bias and intended to act punitively on that basis. . .