The Colorado Supreme Court threw out a case Tuesday involving a Christian baker who refused to make a cake for a transgender woman.
Lawyer Autumn Scardina, who is transgender, sued Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips after he refused to provide a cake to celebrate her gender transition.
Phillips, who is a Christian, said the request violated his religious beliefs.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court did not consider the merits of the case but instead found that Scardina had not exhausted her options with lower courts before filing her complaint.
Phillips is no stranger to the national media spotlight. In 2012, he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple's wedding and the case was ultimately heard by the U.S. Supreme Court.
Scardina allegedly called Masterpiece Cakeshop on the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would take up Phillips' case to request a custom cake to celebrate her gender transition. According to Phillips' attorney, she later called back to request another custom cake depicting Satan smoking marijuana.
When Phillips refused to make her orders, Scardina filed an antidiscrimination complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division and Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
According to court documents, Phillips then sued both the division and commission in federal court, arguing that creating a cake for Scardina would go against the teachings of his religion.
The district court rebuffed Scardina's attempt to become involved in the federal proceedings by denying her motion and both the division and commission dismissed her administrative complaint in a confidential settlement, The Hill reported. However, they failed to issue a requisite order to explain the reasoning behind the dismissal.
Phillips' attorney, Jake Warner of Alliance for Defending Freedom, said Phillips has been fighting legal battles for more than 10 years over his refusal to comply.
"Enough is enough," Warner said in a statement. "Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It's time to leave him alone."
Scardina's legal counsel said Tuesday's ruling skirted the issue.
"The Colorado Supreme Court decided to avoid the merits of this issue by inventing an argument no party raised," John McHugh said, according to The Associated Press.
The minority dissent sided with McHugh, saying the "ramifications of the majority's ruling are troubling on many levels."
"Procedurally, the majority adopts an unprecedented administrative regime under which, once a merits hearing is set, a district court can never hear the matter; and an administrative agency may never settle the matter over a claimant's objection, no matter how unreasonable that objection may be, but instead must litigate the matter to its conclusion," the dissent read.
Nicole Wells ✉
Nicole Wells, a Newsmax general assignment reporter covers news, politics, and culture. She is a National Newspaper Association award-winning journalist.
© 2024 Newsmax. All rights reserved.