It’s established law in these United States: you do not have to bake a poop cake.

It is a fundamental human right to eat poop, but a baker doesn’t have to assist you.

These are our top freedoms.

Reuters:

Colorado’s top court on Tuesday ducked the question of whether a Christian baker had the right to refuse to create a cake for a customer celebrating a gender transition by dismissing the discrimination case on procedural grounds.

Lower courts in Colorado had concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop and the bakery’s owner, Jack Phillips, had violated Autumn Scardina’s rights by refusing to make her a pink cake with blue frosting because of her identity as a transgender woman.

“Autumn Scardina”

Phillips, whose prior refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple was at the center of a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, had on appeal urged the Colorado Supreme Court to conclude that requiring him to make the cake would infringe his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.

Faggots are completely obsessed with this guy.

He beat them at SCOTUS, so apparently there are just faggots lined up outside his shop every day demanding poop cake.

But the state high court on a 4-3 vote avoided that issue entirely by instead concluding that under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Scardina, a lawyer, was not permitted to sue the baker in 2019 following an earlier administrative process.

Scardina had initially filed a discrimination complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division after Phillips refused to make the cake she wanted to order to celebrate her birthday and her identity as a transgender woman. She said he refused her order because of her identity.

The commission reached a confidential settlement with Phillips, without Scardina’s participation. Justice Melissa Hart, writing for the majority, said Scardina should have challenged that decision in an appeals court, rather than file a new lawsuit.

Justice Richard Gabriel, in a dissenting opinion joined by two other justices, called the majority’s ruling “troubling” for how it “throws Scardina completely out of court.”

“I am concerned that Masterpiece and Phillips will construe today’s ruling as a vindication of their refusal to sell non-expressive products with no intrinsic meaning to customers who are members of a protected class (here, the LGBTQ+ community),” he wrote.

Why are homosexuals a “protected class”?

What does it mean that in America we supposedly have “equality” but also have “protected classes”?

How can both things be true?

How can you force a man to bake a cake?

In actual fact, based on the existing law in this stupid faggot country, the baker is legally required to make a poop cake. It’s in the Civil Rights Act that normal people do not have rights to freedom of association, and “protected classes” are allowed to order them to do things. This “protected class” vs. normal people Master-Slave dynamic is supposed to be counterbalanced by “religious freedom,” but you are expressly not allowed to say it is against your religion to bake a cake for niggers, so there is no reason you would be allowed to refuse to bake a poop cake.

America law is totally Jewish and does not make any sense. It is not based on a system.

That’s why the court didn’t want to make a real ruling and simply dismissed the case.

Guy’s been in and out of court for the past 12 years or so

This guy isn’t so much a baker as he is a professional victim of lawsuits.

Washington Times:

Christian baker Jack Phillips asked the Colorado Supreme Court this week to reject a case against him after the Supreme Court affirmed the First Amendment right of artists who turn down work that would entail creating content that would contradict their religious beliefs.

Mr. Philips has been engaged in litigation for years after he refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding. He was sued under Colorado’s public accommodations law that protects certain groups from discrimination, including those based on sexual orientation.

His case went to the Supreme Court more than five years ago where he had a narrow win — but ultimately, the justices sent his case back to lower courts for further evaluation.

Video from 5 years

In the meantime, an attorney issued another request to Mr. Phillips asking him to create a gender transition cake that was pink on the inside but blue on the outside. He refused and the attorney sued again under the same law.

Mr. Phillips’ attorneys, though, just won a challenge to the same Colorado law, representing a Christian web designer, Lorie Smith, who refused to build wedding websites for same-sex marriages.

The case was 303 Creative v. Elenis and it challenged the same state law plaguing Mr. Phillips. The win for Ms. Smith was viewed by court watchers as a landmark First Amendment victory against LGBTQ rights.

The high court in the 6-3 decision said the government can’t force individuals to speak or create messages in a way that runs afoul of their beliefs. The opinion, though, detailed Ms. Smith’s free speech rights to create expressive work.

Legal experts say lower courts will have to grapple with whether bakers and florists and other industries qualify as expressive work to enjoy the same protections as Ms. Smith.

Pointing to the new high court precedent, though, Mr. Phillips’ attorneys told the Colorado Supreme Court it must honor Mr. Phillips’ right to decline to make a gender transition cake.

“When citizens face speech choices they don’t like, ‘our Nation’s answer’ is ‘tolerance, not coercion,’” Mr. Phillips’ attorneys wrote in their Tuesday filing, quoting from the June Supreme Court’s ruling. “303 Creative controls here. Given its clarity, Petitioners ask this Court to grant review, vacate the decision below, and enter judgment for Petitioners.”

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission sued Mr. Phillips several years ago, arguing Mr. Phillips was refusing a service in violation of Colorado’s public accommodations law. The case made it to the court in 2017.

Mr. Phillips argued that his cakes amounted to First Amendment speech and that forcing him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding violated his religious rights.

The Supreme Court ruled that the commission showed undue animosity toward Mr. Phillips and sent the case back to a lower court, but the justices shied away from a broad ruling on constitutional principles.

The Supreme Court is useless.

This whole government is useless.

It is fully impossible for this government to say “come on, guys – just leave the old cake guy alone.”

There is no longer any system in this government to say that.

Newest case is from a tranny

There is a man too based to ever bake a faggot cake.

Therefore, the ACLU Jew faggots come at him every single day, to try to get him to bake the anal cake.

He refuses. And he will not stand down.

Every day, he bakes only penis in vagina cakes, and lives to fight again.

Life Site News:

Christian baker Jack Phillips was back in court last week defending his right not to create cakes that affirm LGBT ideology, more than four years after the U.S. Supreme Court declined an opportunity to conclusively settle the matter.

In 2018, Autumn Scardina filed a complaint against Phillips, the proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, for declining to bake a cake that would be pink on the inside and blue on the outside to celebrate his “transition” from male to female. Two days later, Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) director Aubrey Elenis claimed there was probable cause to conclude Phillips had unlawfully denied Scardina “equal enjoyment of a place of public accommodation.”

Autumn Scardina, tranny

In response, the religious liberty nonprofit Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) filed a federal lawsuit against outgoing Democrat Gov. John Hickenlooper and the state civil rights commission, accusing them of ignoring the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2018 ruling in Phillips’ favor over same-sex “marriage” cakes and continuing to discriminate against Phillips’ faith.

In March 2019, the state Attorney General’s office announced that it and Phillips’ attorneys have “mutually agreed to end their ongoing state and federal court litigation,” including the CCRD action against Phillips, though the agreement did not preclude Scardina from filing a civil suit of his own in state court, which he did.

Last year, Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones ruled that Phillips had violated the state’s anti-discrimination law, rejecting his argument that baking the pro-trans cake would constitute compelled speech and claiming his refusal was “inextricably intertwined” with denial of Scardina’s “gender identity.”

Now, the Associated Press reported that ADF attorney Jake Warner, who is representing Phillips, appeared in court last Wednesday to argue for the reversal of that ruling on both free speech and religious freedom grounds, as well as procedural grounds. He maintained that Scardina was supposed to file an appeal with the state appeals court first, and the judge who heard the case instead lacked jurisdiction.

“This activist attorney, Autumn Scardina, called up Jack and asked Jack to create a custom pink and blue cake celebrating a gender transition,” says ADF attorney Jonathan Scruggs. “That’s something the trial court even acknowledged. This attorney has been harassing Jack for … numerous years, emailing Jack, calling him a bigot and a hypocrite, and asking Jack to create a custom cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana.”

Phillips’ years of ongoing legal battles stem in large part from the nation’s highest court declining to issue a clear ruling on the core issues of the dispute when it had an opportunity to do so. Instead of clearly affirming that Phillips’ First Amendment rights had been violated, as conservative Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito, and Neil Gorsuch had advocated in concurring opinions, former Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion found that the state civil rights commission had displayed a “clear and impermissible hostility toward” the baker’s “sincere religious beliefs.”

…

Phillips has “been in litigation for almost 10 years,” Scruggs lamented, though the attorney is optimistic about the future. “At the end of the day, he’s won his prior attempts in court — at the U.S. Supreme Court and then once before at a lower court — and we’re hopeful that he’ll win this case again.”

I hate to even say it: but do you remember when they said “privacy of their own bedrooms”? As if faggots weren’t already doing sick things in the privacy of their own bedrooms?

They’ve made it about all of us now, and they’ve made it about kids, and this poop is on the hands of the boomers who said it was okay for them to do anal licking and fisting “in the privacy of their own bedrooms.”

If no one would have tolerated this bedroom privacy garbage, we would not be facing forced anal cakes as we are.