Colorado’s Supreme Court on Tuesday dismissed a case involving a Christian baker who refused to provide a cake for a transgender woman’s celebration.
Attorney Autumn Scardina sued Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop based outside Denver, after he refused to provide a cake for her gender transition celebration. Phillips said it violated his religion.
The court in a 6-3 ruling did not consider the merits of the claims but determined Scardina had not exhausted her options to seek redress from another court before filing her lawsuit.
Phillips gained national attention in 2012 after his refusal to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding was brought before the U.S. Supreme Court.
On the same day the U.S. Supreme Court announced it would hear Phillips’s case, Scardina allegedly called requesting a custom cake to celebrate her gender transition. She then called again to request another custom cake, one depicting Satan smoking marijuana, according to Phillips’s attorney.
When Phillips declined, Scardina filed an antidiscrimination claim with the Colorado Civil Rights Division and Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Phillips then sued both the division and the commission in federal court, arguing that providing Scardina with a cake would violate his religion, according to court documents.
Scardina tried to become involved with the federal proceedings, but the district court denied her motion. Instead, both groups dismissed her administrative complaint through a confidential settlement but failed to issue the required order explaining its reasoning.
Phillips’s attorney, Jake Warner of the Arizona-based firm Alliance for Defending Freedom, said Phillips is an artist who cannot be forced to comply with what he does not “believe.” He noted Phillips has been under legal scrutiny for 10 years.
“Enough is enough. Jack has been dragged through courts for over a decade. It’s time to leave him alone,” Warner released in a statement.
Scardina’s attorney expressed disappointment with Tuesday’s ruling.
“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 agreed with McHugh, saying the ruling adopts an “unprecedented administrative regime.”
“The ramifications of the majority’s ruling are troubling on many levels,” the dissent reads. “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. In my view, neither law nor sound policy supports such a conclusion.”