Chinese Drone Manufacturer DJI Voices Concerns Against Potential Interference From United States Government

Beginning last year, the United States has been in a trade war with the People’s Republic of China. The two countries are the largest two economies in the world; by gross domestic product (GDP), the United States’ economy is the largest, whereas China has the world’s most powerful economy by measure of purchasing power parity (PPP).

Since the start of 2019, the Trump administration has raised concerns about doing business with Chinese tech firms, namely Huawei.

One of the largest drone manufacturers on the planet, DJI, a Chinese manufacturer of tech products, recently spoke out against the Trump administration’s and Congress’ recent actions taken against Chinese tech giants.

Although the United States federal government hasn’t taken any actions against DJI specifically, the company is worried that it may soon have to quit doing business in the United States, reports Reuters. Americans collectively purchase more drones from DJI than any other manufacturer, regardless of whether they’re found in China or elsewhere.

The Senate’s Transportation Subcommittee, which is part of the Senate’s Commerce Committee, shared in a meeting last week that prolific Chinese drone manufacturer DJI could be of as much concern as Huawei in terms of collecting information from American users and then directly turning around and sharing those insights with the Chinese government.

This is of concern because China has been accused of having unfair intellectual property guidelines that allow Chinese manufacturers, which largely provide the most value in terms of all manufacturers, to require businesses from the United States to share their organizations’ patents, trade secrets, and other helpful information with them. Chinese manufacturers have been able to demand the sharing of such information with widespread success for many years, thanks to the best manufacturers on planet Earth in terms of providing the highest value for the lowest cost having outshined the rest of the world’s manufacturers by leaps and bounds.

Some industry experts based in the United States have alleged that DJI directly sends all information that it collects from American users and the American market to the Chinese government. However, DJI has repeatedly denied such allegations.

Even though some American government officials and industry experts believe that DJI is operating against the concerns of the United States government and the country’s economy, DJI has been awarded the rights to several government contracts. For example, DJI just came out with a drone system intended solely for use by governments earlier today, which the United States is already expected to utilize.

Federal Judge Issues Ruling Against ICE

Since the election of Donald Trump, US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has been arresting and deporting illegal immigrants from a number of locations. One of the locations where arrests are occurring has caused a great deal of controversy among those in the legal community. ICE has been arresting illegal immigrants who are coming to court hearings for their own legal matters or to be witnesses in other cases.

District attorneys in more than one state have filed suit against the federal government in order to stop the practice of ICE arrests at courthouses. The district attorneys claim that fear of arrest and deportation are keeping people from showing up for their court cases and from being witnesses in other cases.

This week, federal judge Indira Talwani ruled on a case brought against ICE by district attorneys, public defenders and those who assist immigrants. Talwani issued a preliminary injunction stopping ICE from making certain types of arrests at state courthouses in the state of Massachusetts. The judge barred ICE from making civil arrests of those on official business with the court. Those with court cases, those serving as witnesses and those coming and leaving from the courthouse on official business will not be allowed to be detained by ICE.

The judge’s ruling will allow ICE to make arrests in some circumstances. ICE agents will be able to take into custody those who are wanted in conjunction with criminal offenses. Illegal immigrants already in custody for other matters will also be allowed to be detained by ICE.

This is not the only case concerning ICE that is occurring in the state of Massachusetts. Currently, a case is being heard in Boston where a judge has been charged with obstruction of justice for supposedly helping an immigrant avoid detention by ICE agents.

Ex-Trump Advisor Accused Of Violating Gag Order From The Court

Federal prosecutors accused former political advisor to President Donald Trump, Roger Stone, of violating a gag order imposed by the court. Prosecutors say Stone violated the order when he posted comments on social media regarding the investigation conducted by Robert Mueller.

The filing was made by prosecutors in the District of Columbia’s United States District Court and accuses Stone of trying to taint the jury pool before his trial in November. Prosecutors are asking the judge in the case to reconsider the conditions of Stone’s release from detention.

According to, in the filing, prosecutors write that Stone posted material that was intended to gain the attention of media sources. They go on to write that the information is irrelevant to the case at hand but is meant to draw an emotional response from potential jurors. The information released by Stone is concerning claims that the Russians did not try to hack servers during the 2016 presidential election.

Lawyers for Roger Stone are also bound by the gag order and have not responded to the recent court filings.

Judge Amy Berman Jackson is likely to be unhappy with the social media posts by Stone and his actions could result in prehearing detention.

Back in February, Stone posted a photo of the judge on his Instagram account. Her face appeared in the photos next to an image of crosshairs. The photo was considered threatening by the judge and triggered the gag order.

Stone apologized at the hearing but the apology was characterized as ‘hollow’ by a visibly angry Judge Jackson. She warned Stone at the time that there would be no second chances if he chose not to abide by the gag order.

Stone was arrested and charged with witness tampering, obstruction of justice, and providing false statements to Congress in connection with Robert Mueller’s investigation into whether the Russian government interfered with the 2016 presidential election process. Thirty-three others were arrested as a result of the investigation.

Stone has pleaded not guilty to all charges levied against him. He has been vocal in the past regarding his disdain for Mueller’s investigation. Stone also expressed disbelief on more than one occasion that any collusion took place between the administration of Donald Trump and the Russian government.

Roger Stone has been critical of what he sees as a failure on the part of mainstream media outlets to cover the poor handling of the investigation by Mueller.

Chicago Refuses Cooperation with ICE

Chicago is making major headlines on CNN right now for its mayor’s stance on refusing to cooperate with efforts by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to round up illegal immigrants within the city. This is the latest city to join the list of municipalities that are publicly declaring their opposition to ICE activities in starting deportation proceedings for those who are in the country without proper documentation.

Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot went so far as to announce that the Chicago Police Department has been directed to cut off any access to its databases for ICE so that the federal agency is not able to identify criminal records or current residences for undocumented immigrants within the city. This announcement was in response to the message from the White House that was released on Monday of last week regarding the anticipated raids on immigrant communities that ICE has been directed to perform to round up an estimated 2,000 undocumented immigrants currently living in the U.S. Mayor Lightfoot decried the president’s plans as a targeted attack on the country’s immigrant communities and was outspoken in her declaration that she would not be enlisting any of the city’s resources to assist with enforcing his immigration policies. However, Mayor Lightfoot said that city officials and employees, including the police department, will not actively interfere with any ICE raids or impede ICE officials from performing their duties.

This does not come as a surprise to citizens of Chicago because Mayor Lightfoot had previously identified Chicago as a sanctuary city for immigrants and their families. In essence, this means that the city will not be openly hostile to kicking out any undocumented immigrants and will not target them for enhanced civil or criminal penalties based on their immigration status. This is in direct opposition to directives from the federal government that are focused on taking swift action against those who are residing in the country without the proper documentation. There are nine other cities in the U.S. that have been identified by the White House as targets for upcoming ICE raids. These cities have also spoken out against the immigration policies and have stated that they will not be assisting federal authorities in carrying out any ICE raids on immigrant communities. One of the major concerns is that many undocumented immigrants are parents of children who have legal status and would be separated from their families for deportation.

Sandy Hook Father Wins Lawsuit

In 2012, Lenny Pozner suffered an unimaginable tragedy. When a crazed gunman bearing a military-grade weapon burst into his son Noah’s school, the six-year-old lost his life. But what followed over the next few years was shockingly harrowing as well. Instead of receiving sympathy for his loss, Pozner suddenly found that he was the new target of conspiracy theorists. Not only did these fringe radicals claim that Noah had never died at Sandy Hook, but they also put forward the mind-boggling idea that Noah had never even existed in the first place. Instead of being treated like a grieving parent, Lenny Pozner became an easy target for unbalanced people across the world. The harassment reached a fever pitch when one of the conspiracy theorists decided to write a book about Sandy Hook. The book claimed that the grieving families were “crisis actors” and that no murders had ever occurred.

Pozner decided to use the legal system to fight back, filing a defamation lawsuit against the publishers. He won, meaning that the book was removed from shelves. In a stunning turnaround, one of the principals at Moon Rock Books, the group that was responsible for publishing the book, expressed remorse for having published it in the first place. Dave Gahary claimed that he had met in person with Lenny Pozner and believed that Noah had been killed at Sandy Hook.

It’s important to note that this morbid conspiracy theory was fueled by online personality Alex Jones. His show, “Infowars”, consistently hammered the grieving Sandy Hook parents, and supporters of the show appear to have become swept up in the lies Jones repeatedly told on his show. It wasn’t long before many of these families, which were already besieged by grief, were forced into hiding because of Sandy Hook “truthers”. Now that the parents are taking action, Jones is mounting a legal defense of his own. Recently, he claimed that he was under a psychotic spell when he promoted the dangerous Sandy Hook conspiracy on his show.

Read More:

President Trump Promises To Deport Tons Of Illegal Immigrants Starting Next Week

Traditionally, the United States government, via federal government agencies such as Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, has not only informed the public ahead of time when it plans to round up undocumented immigrants or otherwise tighten up border security. This is done for obvious reasons, most of which fall under the umbrella of various practices taken by such lawbreakers to prevent capture.

Traditionally, people running for the role of the president here in the United States really start gearing up their presidential campaigns slightly more than two years before elections are held – right around the point where we’re at right now in four-year election cycles.

Current United States President Donald Trump, like most people who serve the country as the leader of its executive branch, has made it clear that he is running to renew his role as president. He’s just now kicking off his presidential campaign, as you probably already know.

Just yesterday, on Monday, June 17, 2019, President Trump tweeted via his personal Twitter account that the federal government agency Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE, will embark on a campaign to identify, capture, and deport millions of undocumented immigrants who are currently living in the United States at some point next week.

Trump stated that the people who would first be targeted by ICE are those who have already been issued open deportation orders by the United States government.

Experts believe that border protection likely won’t be ramped up as part of Trump’s plan to rid the United States of undocumented, illegal immigrants. Rather, they largely feel that Trump is simply hoping to scare away people who are planning on crossing the border illegally via Mexico.

Although experts have varying opinions, many feel that President Trump’s rhetoric won’t have much of an effect on illegal immigration.

In May 2019 alone, some 140,000 people entered the United States through its southern border with Mexico.

Currently, the United States is home to upward of one million people who have been handed down open deportation orders by federal judges across the nation. To keep things in context, the current record of immigrants who were illegally residing in the United States to have been deported by Immigration and Customs Enforcement in a year’s time was just short of 410,000 back in 2012.

Lawyers Propose Nationwide Settlement Framework In Opioid Lawsuits

Attorneys representing the counties and municipalities that are suing manufacturers and distributors of drugs over the roles they played in the opioid epidemic that has devastated the United States spoke publicly recently of a plan to bring the more than 24,000 communities across the country together in search of billions of dollars in settlement money.

A motion was filed in a Cleveland, Ohio federal court and outlined the proposal in detail. Currently, 1,850 lawsuits from local governments are pending with the same court. The allegations detailed in the suits are that drug makers like Purdue Pharma LP are liable for fueling America’s opioid crisis.

Lawyers for the plaintiffs are seeking to certify a class that will include all municipalities in the U.S. that have filed suit for the purposes of negotiating a settlement. The members of the class will possess the right to vote on any settlement offer from a company.

Lawyers say their proposal is in line with the desires expressed by United States District Judge Dan Polster. Judge Polster is presently presiding over the case and has expressed his belief that a national settlement should be reached that would address the crisis in a meaningful way.

Joe Rice is a lawyer with the Motley Rice law firm and is one lawyer working for the plaintiffs in the case. Rice says the proposal will allow companies to act in good faith toward the community without fear of more lawsuits being filed.

Rice says the objective is to form a national group of plaintiffs that will have the power to vote and negotiate a shared settlement. Rice was willing to acknowledge that the proposal may be opposed by some defendants who fear great exposure to liability.

University of Georgia Law Professor Elizabeth Chamblee Burch says it is not clear at this time if the court will give class action status to such a large group of municipalities.

Cardinal Health Inc. is a drug distributor and a defendant in the case. Cardinal Health said the proposal is a novel one that is untested. The drug distributor also said the proposal is likely to be challenged legally and years of litigation could result from these challenges.

The Center for Disease Control in the United States reported 47,600 deaths by overdose in 2017.

The lawsuit alleges that drug makers fueled the opioid crisis by overstating the positive benefits of opioid-based drugs and downplaying the risks of addiction.

Read More:

Andrew Cuomo Tenant Protection Legislation

(June 15, 2019) The strongest tenant protection legislation in history was passed and signed by Governor Andrew Cuomo yesterday in New York. The legislation heralds the end of rent regulation laws to expire on a schedule of every four to eight years as has been for many years. This will make it much more difficult, if not impossible, for existing housing protected by rent stabilization to be removed from rent stabilization programs. The existing laws expire today. The passage of the bill currently only applies to NYC, Westchester, Rockland, and Nassau counties, The passage of the bill currently only applies to NYC, Westchester, Rockland, and Nassau counties, but there is the option for other municipalities and towns to choose to adopt the legislation should they qualify.

It will greatly stifle MCI’s, major capital improvements, where landlords make repairs and renovations, often at inflated costs, to justify rent increases. Up to now, landlords who were making major renovations were allowed to raise rents by 6 percent. The new law will only allow a 2 percent increase. It will also redefine what actually constitutes an MCI. Landlords predicting this would bill would be passed had been scrambling to get their MCI’s approved before the legislation was enacted. The new bill is called the Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act of 2019.

Since the Democrats gained control of the Senate last year to join the already Democrat Assembly, there was no doubt that the new laws would be passed. Mayor DiBlasio of NYC expressed his pleasure at the ratification of the bill.

Landlord groups disappointed with the new legislation plan to file suit as early as Monday. They are especially displeased with the idea that the laws have no expiration as they did before.

The real estate industry as a whole is up in arms over the legislation. Realtors claim that the new laws will neither benefit landlords nor renters, and will ultimately harm both.

Read More:

Court Makes Ruling On Marijuana Possession In Prisons

California is one of the many states in the United States taking measures to legalize marijuana in some way. Proposition 64 in California allowed people in the state to possess small amounts of marijuana without being charged with a felony. A court in California ruled that Proposition 64 should apply to those incarcerated in California prisons as well.

This week, the California Third District Court of Appeals made a ruling on a case that involved five inmates within the California correctional system. The five inmates were found to be in possession of small amounts of marijuana. These inmates were charged with felonies for possession of the substance.

According to NY Times, in a divided decision, a three judge panel ruled that Proposition 64 applies to those in prison as well. The judges ruled that the five inmates could not be charged with felonies for possession. However, the judges also issued some clarifications to the ruling that has left the legal community in California confused.

The court ruled that the inmates could not be charged with felonies for possession, but the court also ruled that inmates could be charged with felonies for smoking or ingesting marijuana while they are incarcerated. The judges also ruled that while the inmates couldn’t be charged for possession, the prison system can still ban marijuana from prisons as a way to maintain safety and order within the state’s prisons.

The court stated that there needed to be new legislation passed in order to make the situation in prisons more clear. The judges also stated that a new referendum is another possible solution to the confusion.

California Attorney General Xavier Becerra expressed his disapproval with the decision of the majority of judges. At this time, it is not known of Mr. Becerra will appeal the ruling in the matter to the California Supreme Court.

Trump Announced Willingness to Accept Information on Rivals

CNN just reported that President Donald J. Trump expressed a willingness to accept damaging information on his political opponents in the event that it was offered to him by a foreign government. President Trump followed up these comments by stating that he would not necessarily feel compelled to inform the FBI or other law enforcement officials that he had contact with a foreign government official about U.S. political matters. He gave the interview to an ABC News correspondent and was also particularly dismissive of the outcome of the special investigation into Russia’s role in meddling in the 2016 presidential election.

When pressed about how he could justify a foreign government hypothetically offering this influential information as something other than foreign meddling in the U.S. election process, Trump says that providing information does not necessarily amount to interference. He downplayed the suggestion from his own FBI director that it would be a wise move for administration officials to inform the FBI whenever they have meaningful contact about a U.S. election with a foreign official. He went a step further in claiming that he has never called the FBI for any reason in his entire life and doesn’t intend to start doing so now.

In what has become typical of his political posturing, Trump dispensed with the idea that he would need political dirt on an opponent in order to win his next election. Instead of saying how he would use any negative information on a rival, Trump simply stated that he would be willing to listen to the foreign official to at least find out the nature of the information before deciding whether to use it or not.

In regards to the role that information from Russian officials may have played in influencing the outcome of the 2016 presidential election, Trump claimed that he pushed back on Russian officials and declined to use information that was presented to him. He continues to deny that information spread by Russia had any meaningful impact on the outcome of the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

Democratic lawmakers, such as Rep. Brenda Lawrence of Michigan, were outraged at the remarks from Trump and claimed that it is further evidence of his brazen disregard for the law and willingness to allow Russia to interfere with our election process. They contend these statements support the claims that Trump illegally colluded with Russia in order to win the election.

House Panel To Vote Wednesday On Potential Contempt Charges For Senior Trump Officials

A vote will be taken by the Oversight Committee of the House of Representatives on Wednesday to determine whether contempt of Congress charges should be levied against Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and Attorney General William Barr. The potential charges are a result of the Committee’s belief that two men worked to stonewall an investigation regarding the 2020 Census being used as part of a politicized scheme.

Elijah Cummings is the Democratic representative who acts as the chairman of the committee. Cummings says both Barr and Ross have been issued subpoenas from Congress and are refusing to comply. Cummings said the vote to enforce the subpoenas is necessary because the two men are presently in contempt of Congress.

Ross characterized the vote as an ’empty stunt’ on the part of the committee. He says he was interviewed for seven hours and provided 14,000 pages of documents to the Committee.

If the vote by the Committee finds the pair in contempt, then the entire House will vote. If the House as a whole agree the men are in contempt, Barr and Ross can be taken to court in order to force their compliance.

According to the NY Times report, the source of the disagreement is a plan by President Donald Trump’s administration to include a new question pertaining to citizenship on the questionnaire to be used for next year’s census.

Critics of the question say it will deter immigrants from taking part in the Census. Democrats say this can handicap there party by causing them to undercount states that support them.

Ross counters this argument by saying the question is needed to protect the Voting Rights Act. The Act makes it necessary to keep an accurate count of Americans of voting age to make sure the rights of minority voters are not infringed upon.

Democrats on the Committee say the contempt vote was only scheduled after Barr and Ross failed to produce requested documents for two full months after a subpoena was issued.

Ross, according to the Committee, says he personally added the question to the Census, after a request was made from the Department of Justice.

Panel members allege Ross began a covert campaign to have the question added to the Census not long after his appointment. They also say it was many months before any request was made from the Department of Justice.

The Department of Justice has not responded to requests for comments over the scheduled contempt of Congress vote.

Alex Jones To Make $15,000 Payment To Creator Of Pepe The Frog

The artist and creator of the character “Pepe the Frog” is not pleased at all with what his creation has been used for. What began as an innocent children’s cartoon character has been adopted by the alt-right movement and incorporated into a number of racist or sexist memes over the last few years. It is something that has greatly troubled the creator of this cartoon, and it has worried many others as well.

Conspiracy theorist Alex Jones has had to show up in court as a result of this cartoon begin used in promotional advertisements for himself. He did this without the permission of the artist, and the artist decided that he wanted to sue the radio host in order to see some justice in this case. Alex Jones showed up in a California court to sign a settlement agreement in the case. He will pay $15,000 to the creator of the cartoon as a result of this settlement according to NPR.

About one month ago a judge in the case limited the jury award amount in this case to $14,000. Jones agreed to pay that plus $1,000 that will be donated to charity in the settlement agreement. The attorney’s for the Pepe artist say that it was a win for their client even though they would have liked to have seen him awarded a lot more money than he ended up receiving.

The artist in this case has continued to distance himself from those who have hijacked his creation for their own political purposes. He insists that he wants nothing to do with what these individuals are using Pepe for, and he says that this was never the intent behind the creation of Pepe in the first place. He insists that the character was meant to represent the everyday person, and the fact that he has been taken hostage by the alt-right is something that no one should be thrilled about.

Alex Jones quickly agreed to pay the settlement to get this particular legal issue off of his docket. He has been in and out of courts in recent years as he has grown increasingly conspiratorial on his radio show and has on occasion taken things to such an extreme that he has been sued for his words and actions. This is just a blip on the radar for him in terms of the legal battles that he is currently battling, but it is an important victory for some regardless.


Unborn Act, House Bill 126

Last month, Missouri’s governor, Mike Parson, signed pro-life legislation, Missouri Stands for the Unborn Act, a bill also known as House Bill 126, prohibiting abortions after 8 weeks with exceptions for risking the life of the mother. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) filed a petition for a referendum which was denied by Secretary of State, Jay Ashcroft, on the grounds that an emergency clause in the bill which went immediately into effect with the governor’s signature would make a referendum in this case contrary to the Missouri State Constitution. The clause states that both parents of minors seeking abortions need to be notified. The rest of the bill is set to pass on August 28.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has filed a lawsuit against Ashcroft, claiming that the clause does not constitute an emergency since, as it already stood, at least one parent had to be notified, and the people should have their right to a referendum. Ashcroft’s response was that “the court clearly states the determination about whether or not an emergency clause is proper or not is a matter for the courts.” He says that the point remains that any bill with a provision in it that has already been passed precludes the bill from going to a referendum. The ACLU contends that the only reason the clause was included was to preempt a referendum.

A spokesperson from the ACLU said that refusing to allow the referendum proves that those in favor of the bill know they’re acting against the wishes of the majority, and that is why they don’t want it to go to a referendum. Republican House Speaker, Elijah Haahr, was grateful the Governor signed the bill because he said it reflects the values of the majority of the state’s population.

As it stands now, Missouri has only one abortion clinic located in St. Louis. If the law goes into effect on August 28th, any doctor performing an abortion could face up to 15 years in prison, though there is no stipulation that the woman receiving the abortion would be prosecuted.

King Trump Gave English Conservatives A Heavy Dose Of His Snake Oil

China keeps eating away at the American economy. But Trump likes his tariff plan. He thinks it will bring China back to the bargaining table. And he likes the way he doubled down by banning Huawei from doing business in the United States.

Trump told his voter base he holds the winning trade hand. The Chinese will have to let him mess with their laws, or he will make sure every American citizen financially suffers in the process.

But China was ready for Trump’s hardball approach. They know Mr. Trump must have some trade deal in the books before the 2020 election. But China is in no hurry to give Trump what he wants. Little by little, the Chinese take bites out of America’s economy while Trump claims he has the upper hand. China fined Ford’s China division $24 million for breaking Chinese laws. And the government wants to fine FedEx as well as other American companies doing business in China.

According to CNN, chinese tourists may keep their $34.4 billion in the bank instead of spending it in the United States. The Chinese government said the U.S. police might give them a hard time for no reason, and they might be a crime victim. The soybean farmers got a kick in the face when China did not write any future soybean contracts. According to the Brazilian press, Brazil will fill those contracts.

The China trade war may prompt the Feds to cut the interest rates, according to Fed Chair Jerome Powell. Powell didn’t say he would cut rates right away. The Reserve Board doesn’t know how long Trump’s tariff game will continue. But some financial analysts say the Feds may cut the rates in September and December because of Trump’s economic missteps.

British spy Christopher Steele will tell investigators what he knows about Trump’s salacious behavior in Russia in 2015. Mr. Steele wrote a report for the Democrats. Former FBI director James Comey saw the report, and he put an FBI tail on the Trump campaign. There were signs Trump had a close relationship with Russian officials.

Mr. Trump feels very British now that the Royal Mother let him pat her on the back. Trump tried to get Prince Charles to change the subject when he brought up climate change. Trump was too busy picking the next prime minister to bother with Charles concern over what the Trumpster calls the weather. He interviewed conservative candidates as if he was in the process of filming a segment of Celebrity Apprentice. Several candidates sucked up to the Trumpster. They want to part of his growing worldwide cult.

Jack Phillips and The Cake Legal Battles

A Controversial Lawsuit
Recently, Colorado Public Radio did an article about a lawsuit that is being brought up against Jack Phillips. Phillips is the owner of a Colorado based cake shop. Phillips had been in the news in previous years because of his refusal to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding. In 2012, a discrimination complaint was filed against Phillips, and it made its way all the way to the Supreme Court. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Philips because the judges decided that Philips had been discriminated against.

What is Different about this New Lawsuit?
The lawsuit that has recently been raised against Phillips is taking the state of Colorado completely out of the equation. The attorney who is representing the transgender woman believes that they will win in state courts because there are no first amendment or religious implications that would allow this cake shop to discriminate against her. Apart from alleging that Phillips acted in a discriminatory way, the lawsuit also indicates that Phillips was deceptive in his wording.

What Does Phillips Say?
Jack Phillips says that he will not allow anyone to violate his Christian principles. With that, he has mentioned that he has often declined to make Halloween cakes and he also declines to make cakes that are disrespectful of LGBTQ people. Phillips believes that the government does not have the right to compel him to participate in the creation of any that would force him to promote a message that he does not agree with.

More on the Suit
This lawsuit is being filed by a transgender woman named Autumn Scardina. Scardina wanted Phillips to make her a cake to celebrate her gender transition and her birthdate. Scardina is hoping that the courts will take action against the discriminatory behavior that she claims to have experienced.