(From the ACLU Blog of Rights)

By Amanda Goad, LGBT Project at 10:17am

 
When Christian educator Bill Jack ordered a cake last year from Azucar, a Denver bakery, he had a special decoration request for owner Marjorie Silva. He wanted the cake to say "God Hates Gays" with a drawing to match. Silva refused, and now she's facing a half-baked complaint from Jack alleging he was the victim of religious discrimination.
Jack and others are touting this as equivalent to what happened at Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012, and they are pointing to both cases as reasons to support laws allowing businesses to discriminate against gay couples. As you have likely heard by now, Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips turned away gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from shopping for wedding cakes, citing his faith as the reason. The couple filed a discrimination complaint and the ACLU stepped in to represent them. An administrative judge and then the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that yes, they had suffered illegal discrimination. Masterpiece and Phillips are now appealing that decision.
It's true that both stories lend themselves to headlines including the words "gay," "Christian," and "discrimination," not to mention the very popular word "cake." But these situations are quite different when you look beyond the headlines.
Silva made a good-faith effort to work with Jack when he presented himself as a customer. She had no problem with making a cake in the shape of a Bible, even offering to make him a blank one and provide the DIY decorating tools he would need to add the words and images that he was asking for. It's not as though she was trying to offer a different, less extensive menu to Christian customers. Phillips, on the other hand, was unwilling to even talk about design options with Craig and Mullins. Jack said he would make them a birthday cake or some brownies, but the wedding cake they came in for? No dice.
Further, Silva declined to fulfill a cake "order" because the order went beyond her standards of offensiveness. Her issue was with the design, not who was trying to order it or what they planned to do with it. And nondiscrimination laws have nothing to say about business owners' standards of taste, as long as they apply across the board to all customers.
Phillips, on the other hand, freely admits that it was Masterpiece Cakeshop's long-standing policy to sell wedding cakes for opposite-sex couples and refuse to sell them for same-sex couples. Craig and Mullins did not even get to explain to Phillips what their dream wedding cake might have looked like before he rejected their business. Thus, Phillips has been found in violation of Colorado law and ordered to end his previous practice of sexual orientation discrimination, but it's highly unlikely the complaint against Silva will go anywhere since he wasn't turned away because of who he is.
Businesses often have standards and policies related to the products they will stock, the services they will provide, or the orders they will fill, and nothing in Colorado law prohibits that. But setting a storewide neutral policy that applies to all customers is very different from refusing service because of who the customer is. And that crucial difference is why Jack's new claim of "discrimination" shouldn't lead anyone to support a law that would allow businesses to discriminate against gay customers.

Date

Friday, January 23, 2015 - 9:37am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

LGBTQ+ Equality

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

21

Style

Standard with sidebar

It's with great pride that we recognize ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein and Staff Attorney Rebecca T. Wallace who were recently named top lawyers in the field of civil rights by 5280 Magazine. The magazine chose 300 top lawyers in the Denver Metro Area in 46 specialties. Lawyers chosen for the list were selected by their peers using a combination of surveys sent out to thousands of Colorado attorneys and in-depth interviews conducted by the magazine. See the full list and read more about the selection process here.

Congratulations, Mark and Rebecca!

Date

Friday, January 9, 2015 - 10:44am

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

21

Style

Standard with sidebar

DENVER – The American Civil Liberties Union of Colorado filed suit this morning against the City of Trinidad and a pair of Trinidad detectives on behalf of two innocent women who were falsely arrested and prosecuted as part of a highly-publicized “drug sting” in December, 2013.

According to the lawsuit, detectives Phil Martin and Arsenio Vigil relied on unsubstantiated accusations made by an untrustworthy confidential informant while ignoring readily available evidence that clearly demonstrated that ACLU clients Danika Gonzales and Felicia Valdez were innocent.  According to the ACLU, these unjustified false arrests are representative of the Trinidad Police Department’s “custom, policy, and/or practice of conducting undercover stings and arrests in a manner that violates the U.S. Constitution.”

Overall, 40 individuals were arrested during Trinidad’s 2013 “drug sting,” many on the basis of false, deficient, and misleading arrest affidavits, according to the ACLU complaint.  None of the 40 arrests resulted in a drug-related conviction.

“At the Trinidad police department, it is standard operating procedure to recruit snitches of unproven and untested reliability and unleash them on the community with money and a directive to buy drugs, without the oversight, control and supervision that is regarded as standard in law enforcement circles,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein.  “The result is an open invitation for an opportunistic snitch to lie with impunity, to pocket the “buy” money, to skim drugs for personal use, and to settle personal scores by framing innocent persons, all while getting handsomely paid by the police. And that is what happened in this case, after the Trinidad police recruited informant Crystal Bachicha.”

The cases that relied on Bachicha’s accusations started to fall apart shortly after the “drug sting” and the arrests of 40 people.  Two people arrested for supposed drug sales to Bachicha were cleared after it was proven that they were actually in jail on the dates the sales supposedly occurred.

The lawsuit charges that Martin and Vigil sought arrest warrants based on Bachicha’s uncorroborated accusations while deliberately concealing from the judge a wealth of facts they knew would cast doubt on her credibility and motives.  In addition, the ACLU charges that the detectives laced the arrest affidavits with false and misleading assertions designed to manufacture probable cause for arrest.

Gonzalez, who had been Bachicha’s probation officer, lost her job as a result of the false arrest.  Valdez was fired from her job with the Trinidad School System, and she and her children were evicted from their federally-subsidized housing.

“The detectives turned a blind eye to multiple red flags indicating that their snitch was not trustworthy, and worse, they either ignored or downright concealed evidence that would have made clear that the snitch was lying and our clients were innocent,” said Paul Karlsgodt, of Baker Hostetler LLP, who is leading a team of ACLU cooperating attorneys litigating the case.

The suit was filed this morning in federal district court in Denver.

more on this case

Date

Thursday, January 8, 2015 - 10:30am

Featured image

Show featured image

Hide banner image

Tweet Text

[node:title]

Related issues

Criminal Legal Reform

Show related content

Menu parent dynamic listing

21

Show PDF in viewer on page

Style

Standard with sidebar

Show list numbers

Pages

Subscribe to ACLU Colorado RSS