Skip to main content

The context you need, when you need it

When news breaks, you need to understand what actually matters — and what to do about it. At Vox, our mission to help you make sense of the world has never been more vital. But we can’t do it on our own.

We rely on readers like you to fund our journalism. Will you support our work and become a Vox Member today?

Join now

Colorado baker who refused to serve gay couple now wants to refuse to serve transgender person

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, is suing Colorado officials.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, stands in front of the US Supreme Court.
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, stands in front of the US Supreme Court.
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, stands in front of the US Supreme Court.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The Colorado baker who earlier this year won a Supreme Court case over whether he can refuse service for same-sex weddings is suing the state again. But this time, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is arguing that Colorado officials violated his religious rights by pushing him to bake a cake for a transgender woman.

In June 2017, Autumn Scardina, a transgender lawyer, requested cake with a pink-and-blue design to celebrate her birthday and her anniversary of coming out as trans. According to NPR, she was told that Masterpiece does not make cakes that celebrate gender transitions. She sued, and Colorado officials in June of this year said there was “sufficient evidence” for her discrimination claim and directed her and Masterpiece Cakeshop to “compulsory mediation.”

Phillips has publicly contested the decision. “I know the Bible says that God created male and female and that we don’t get to choose that,” he told Colorado Public Radio. “And I don’t feel like the government has a right to compel me to participate in creating a cake that promotes that message.”

Phillips won his Supreme Court case earlier this year dealing with another instance, from 2012, in which he and Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding reception. But the ruling in that case was narrow; rather than deciding that Phillips’s religious beliefs empowered him to bypass Colorado anti-discrimination law and discriminate against gay people, the ruling focused on how the Colorado government had treated Phillips — unfairly, in the Supreme Court justices’ view.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion, made the narrow scope of the ruling explicit in his decision: “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”

The narrow ruling makes it unclear just how Phillips would fare if his latest claim reached the Supreme Court. But with Kennedy retiring and the Supreme Court expected to become even more conservative, Phillips’s chances seem good (for him).

Colorado is in the minority of states that explicitly prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Advocates argue that federal law banning discrimination based on sex should protect LGBTQ people, because discrimination against a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity is fundamentally rooted in sex-based expectations. But the US Supreme Court hasn’t embraced the claim, leaving the issue to a patchwork of lower court decisions.

So in most states, Phillips’s refusal to serve LGBTQ people in different instances may not even require a religious exemption. He could, at least under most states’ laws as written today, be allowed to discriminate against LGBTQ people as he wishes.

For more on the previous Masterpiece Cakeshop case, read Vox’s explainer.

See More:

More in Politics

Podcasts
The Supreme Court abortion pills case, explainedThe Supreme Court abortion pills case, explained
Podcast
Podcasts

How Louisiana brought mifepristone back to SCOTUS.

By Peter Balonon-Rosen and Sean Rameswaram
Politics
Trump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expectedTrump’s China policy is nearly the exact opposite of what everyone expected
Politics

As Trump heads to China, attention and resources are being shifted from Asia to yet another war in the Middle East.

By Joshua Keating
Politics
Are far-right politics just the new normal?Are far-right politics just the new normal?
Politics

Liberals are preparing for a longer war with right-wing populists than they once expected.

By Zack Beauchamp
The Logoff
Flavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA headFlavored vapes doomed Trump’s FDA head
The Logoff

Why Marty Makary is out at the FDA, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters
Politics
Virginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymanderVirginia Democrats’ irresponsible new plan to save their gerrymander
Politics

Democrats just handed the Supreme Court’s Republicans a loaded weapon.

By Ian Millhiser
The Logoff
Can Trump lower gas prices?Can Trump lower gas prices?
The Logoff

What suspending the gas tax would mean for you, briefly explained.

By Cameron Peters