The entire case is built on ludicrous contortions of logic and law. The Colorado Court of Appeals, for instance, ruled in favor of Scardina, contending that the colors pink and blue aren’t really speech because, in and of themselves, they aren’t expressive of anything. The message, says the court, is “generated by the observer.”

Yes. Because Phillips isn’t a complete idiot, he understands that context matters. The color white has no inherent meaning, either. If a known Klansman asks a tailor to fit him for some white sheets, it definitely does.

Then again, if you believe Scardina just happened to approach the most famous Christian baker in the country to create a “transition” cake the day after the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece ruling was dropped in 2017, you’re certainly an idiot. The entire Scardina episode, including the configuration of the cake — using colors but no words — was calibrated to set Phillips up. //

Scardina claims the lawsuit was intended to “challenge the veracity” of Phillips’ claim that he would serve “LGBTQ” customers. This is the central lie of the case. Phillips never once refused to sell a gay couple or a transgender person or anyone else anything in his store. But Phillips isn’t Autumn Scardina’s servant, and the government has no right to compel him to endorse or participate in any lifestyle. //

the media keeps contending that Phillips is looking for a religious “carve out” in anti-discrimination law — or something along those lines. No such thing exists. It is unclear if the people who write those words are unfamiliar with the First Amendment or just instinctively dismiss it, but religious liberty and free expression are explicitly protected by law. Anything that infringes on those rights is the “carve out,” not the other way around. If “anti-discrimination” laws dictate that the government can compel Americans to express ideas they disagree with, as Colorado does, then anti-discrimination laws need to be overturned, tout de suite.