Colorado Supreme Court won’t advance case against Lakewood baker
Re: “Colorado court dismisses transgender cake case 4-3 decision on technicality,” Oct. 9 news story
Finally, closure in this case. I have always had the opinion that Autumn Scardina, knowing about the first case against Jack Phillips, deliberately brought the lawsuit against him to prove a point. Society seems to have lost the ability to respect someone’s beliefs, whether they be religious, political or whatever other topics you care to name. Personally, if an establishment doesn’t want your business, you can always go to another that will accommodate you. It’s that simple. I’m sure there are quite a few bakeries that could have created what she wanted. Instead, we reach for the first lawyer who will be most willing to waste the court’s time on something that is basically frivolous and cause unnecessary hardship to everyone involved. It’s time to get back to some civility in our society. There is a serious lack of it.
Val Milly Tenhaeff, Colorado Springs
Jack Phillips, a Christian baker in Lakewood, refused to make a cake for a transgender customer, just as he refused to bake a cake for a gay customer’s wedding in 2012. The U.S. Supreme Court had no problem ruling on the 2012 case and finding that Colorado civil rights commissioners had violated the Free Exercise Clause with their hostility toward Phillips’ religion. However, for some reason, the Colorado Supreme Court refused to rule on this new Phillips case regarding transgender discrimination.
In the majority opinion, Colorado Supreme Court Justice Melissa Hart wrote: “The underlying constitutional question this case raises has become the focus of intense public debate: How should governments balance the rights of transgender individuals to be free from discrimination in places of public accommodation with the rights of religious business owners when they are operating in the public market?” Justice Hart then stated: “We cannot answer that question.” If the Colorado Supreme Court can’t answer that question, then who can? The U.S. Supreme Court had no problem answering that exact same question in Phillips’ 2012 case. Wake up, Justice Hart. Do your job and answer the question.
This is a clear discrimination case pursuant to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which provided: “All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation …” such as the bakery in Lakewood.
Michael J. Noonan, Georgetown
Denver Elections Division fails to adequately inform electorate
Re: “Voter Voices: You can weigh in on coverage of the election,” Sept. 29 news story
Related Articles
Letters: Honest election volunteers outnumber Tina Peters and her vocal minority
Letters: New evidence of Trump’s Jan. 6 dirty deeds released too soon or too late?
Letters: Colorado attempts another misguided sin tax — this time on guns
Letters: Facing the truth in Lauren Boebert’s startling immigration facts
Letters: Convoluted C-470 entrances are an accident waiting to happen
I commend The Post’s plan to offer full coverage of the fall’s election issues, including “the ballot measures [the voters will] decide.” Unfortunately, the Denver Elections Division does not share The Post’s intention of providing Denver’s voters with full information on Denver ballot issues, including the pros and cons of each issue. Instead, the Elections Division has just issued a truncated “blue book” addressing only the issues with TABOR implications — because the law requires it.
As for the many other Denver ballot issues confronting voters — including five amendments to Denver’s City Charter and two initiated ordinances addressing potential bans on fur products and slaughterhouses within the city — Denver’s “blue book” is silent. Voters can only find out about the very existence and the effect of these ballot measures by going online and mucking around on the Elections Division’s website until they find the information. This is the antithesis of good government and promoting an informed electorate; it places an unfair and unnecessary burden on voters to figure out what they are being asked to approve and why.
The Washington Post’s profound banner on each day’s newspaper — “Democracy Dies in Darkness” — should be taken to heart by the Elections Division, which should send every voter full ballot information.
Joseph W. Halpern, Denver
Sign up for Sound Off to get a weekly roundup of our columns, editorials and more.
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.