The man at the centre of a massive legal debate has found himself in hot water again after refusing to bake a cake for a customer.
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips didn't want to make a cake for a same-sex couple back in 2012, which sparked a lawsuit that went all the way to the Supreme Court.
Phillips cited his Christian beliefs for not baking the cake and the court ended up siding with him six years later.
But the shop owner is under fire again because he's refused to bake a cake to celebrate a sex transition.
Autumn Scardina wanted a cake that was blue on the outside and pink on the inside to mark her transition to becoming female.
The lawyer ordered the cake in 2017 on the same day the High Court said it would hear the baker's appeal for the same-sex wedding cake, however Phillips didn't want to proceed with the idea.
Scardina filed a lawsuit with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, then Phillips hit back with his own lawsuit against the state of Colorado by claiming he was being persecuted for his religious beliefs.
Both sides dropped their legal challenges in 2019.
However according to Pink News, Scardina launched a new lawsuit and claimed the bakery falsely advertised it 'be happy to provide a variety of baked goods, including birthday cakes, to all members of the public, including LGBT individuals'.
The lawyer believed Phillips violated two state laws: the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA); and the Colorado Consumer Protection Act (CCPA).
Denver District Court Judge Bruce Jones knocked back the latter citation because Scardina's legal team 'failed to establish an actionable unfair or deceptive trade practice... if [they] were engaged in such a stealth advertising campaign, they successfully disguised it within their speech on a matter of public concern'.
The lawsuit will now rely on whether the refusal to bake a cake to celebrate a sex transition constitutes discrimination.
The court document noted: "Plaintiff need not establish that her transgender status was the sole cause of the denial of services. Rather, she need only show that the discriminatory action was based, in whole or in part, on her protected status.
"Defendants assert they would not have made a blue and pink cake celebrating a gender transition for anyone. Defendants made a near identical argument in Craig, contending that they would not have made a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage for anyone. As did the Court of Appeals in Craig, this court rejects Defendants' reasoning."
Chosen for YouChosen for You
Most Read StoriesMost Read