Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple
www.foxnews.com
The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in one of the most closely watched cases of the term.
In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people. The opinion was penned by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is often the swing justice in tight cases.
The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.
"The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.
READ THE DECISION :
The court said the broader issue, though, "must await further elaboration."
Baker Jack Phillips had refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. (Alliance Defending Freedom)
“The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws," Kenney wrote. "Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach."
At issue was a July 2012 encounter. At the time, Charlie Craig and David Mullins of Denver visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to buy a custom-made wedding cake. Phillips refused his services when told it was for a same-sex couple. The state civil rights commission sanctioned Phillips after a formal complaint from the gay couple.
Mullins has described their case as symbolizing “the rights of gay people to receive equal service in business … about basic access to public life."
But the Trump administration backed Phillips, who was represented in court by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit. He had lost at every step in the legal appeals process, bringing the case down to the Supreme Court's decision Monday.
Phillips has said he lost business and had to let employees go because of the controversy.
And he has maintained that it’s his choice: "It's not about turning away these customers, it's about doing a cake for an event -- a religious sacred event -- that conflicts with my conscience," he said last year.
The court in December specifically examined whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the local baker to create commercial "expression" violated his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.
By wading again into the culture wars, the justices had to confront recent decisions on both gay rights and religious liberty: a 2015 landmark opinion legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and a separate 2014 decision affirming the right of some companies to act on their owner's faith by refusing to provide contraception to its workers.
The Trump administration agreed with Phillips' legal claims to a large extent. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October issued broad guidance to executive branch agencies, reiterating the government should respect religious freedom, which in the Justice Department's eyes extends to people, businesses and organizations.
But civil rights groups were concerned the conservative majority on the court may be ready to peel back protections for groups with a history of enduring discrimination – and predicted that giving businesses the right to refuse service to certain customers would undermine non-discrimination laws and hurt minorities.
When the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by certain comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs," Kennedy said in December.
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome. Kagan wrote separately to emphasize the limited ruling.
But Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
"I see no reason why the comments of one or two Commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips’ refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins," Ginsburg wrote.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Seems odd to turn away revenue for your business, but whatever makes them happy.
One caveat here which I didn't see mentioned in the article (forgive me if I missed it): At the time of the baker's refusal, gay marriage was NOT legal in Colorado. I'm not saying that makes it right, I'm saying if it WERE legal, likely the court would have ruled differently.
Of course the deplorable MAGA types will see this as a green light to openly discriminate against the LBGTQ community.
Very exciting times for rightists!
Wrong son.
We The People see the ruling as a victory for the people's religious freedom and liberty.
Cool how President Trump's Make American Great Again promise has turned out better than expected.
[Edited on 6/4/2018 by Muleman1994]
The citizen’s religious freedom and liberty rights are clearly enumerated in The Constitution.
The Constitution extends no enumerated rights to the LGBTQRSTU or any other version of perversion.
The article states that the decision was about this particular baker, and that the ruling is not about all future cases, which still has to be decided.
We The People see the ruling as a victory for the people's religious freedom
But Trump’s adultery with a pornstar and profanity is ok.
I feel like Mule has never been a happy person until Trump won. Now he’s riding the red wave for the next 2-6 years, and then back to anger and misery.
So, does that mean a Catholic baker could refuse to bake Trump a cake since he has committed adultry, which breaks one of the 10 Commandments, as well as his being a multiple divorcee?
The Constitution extends no enumerated rights to the LGBTQRSTU or any other version of perversion.
Such as adultery with a pornstar, and unprotected too!
This was a tough one. The baker said he'd have no problem letting the couple into his story or selling a pre-made cake. His issue was creating essentially art to order for something he didn't believe in. I think may people who are against this ruling would have a hard time if asked to create a "Make America Great Again" B-Day cake for fearless leader,
Reality Check for Mule....it was won on the 1st amendment right to artistic expression on what he would design on the cake. If in fact they tried to buy a cake already made and sitting in his cooler he couldn't then stop them from purchasing it...Then the SCOTUS would have ruled in favor of the client
He won over artistic expression....you should learn the facts before claiming some victory....
I have another question..when you send thoughts and prayers are you waiting for a large voice from the sky to tell you what to do next???
The narrow ruling here focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.
"The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion.
no precedent was set
This was a tough one. The baker said he'd have no problem letting the couple into his story or selling a pre-made cake. His issue was creating essentially art to order for something he didn't believe in.
I’m ok with the ruling about this specific baker according to what I’ve read about it, because he has demonstrated other actions in the past that backed up his religious motives. However, in an effort to make sense of the baker’s opinion, what if the gay couple wanted an identical design as his other cakes? Why would he be ok with selling a pre-made cake to them for their wedding, but not create a new one of the same design?
I think may people who are against this ruling would have a hard time if asked to create a "Make America Great Again" B-Day cake for fearless leader,
Apples and oranges. There’s no discrimination based on gender, race, age, sexual orientation, etc.
Left Wing Justices Kagan and Breyer vote for Religious Liberty in a decision written by Justice Kennedy who often sides with the homosexuals.
How do the far-left extremists here react?
Trump! Trump! Trump!
Noticeably missing from the lefties is any argument why the homosexuals should win over the baker’s Constitutional rights.
Maybe that is why they cry about President Trump who had nothing to do with this case.
Noticeably missing from the lefties is any argument why the homosexuals should win over the baker’s Constitutional rights.
Because they are American citizens and the constitution says all men are created equal...no matter what you say its a form of discrimination...and that in this country should be unacceptable...but then again if you live with your head shoved firmly up your azz then I guess you can see the good in this
When the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by certain comments by a commission member. The commissioner seemed "neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs," Kennedy said in December.
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome. Kagan wrote separately to emphasize the limited ruling.
again, the ruling was against the board that heard the complaint, not for denying service to LBGTQ customers.
Question for Mule. If a baker refused to bake a wedding cake for someone because he found out it was their third marriage and his religion prohibited divorce, would that be OK with you?
"Tolerance"!...screams the left...But then can't handle it when anybody disagrees...Is it possible that the Baker really did have religious beliefs that kept him from making this cake?
Is it possible? If you said yes, then why on Earth did not these two just go to another bakery? But NO!...EVERYONE must know how important this is to our agenda!...EVERYONE must fall in line.
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say.. "This guy is a clown. let's take our business somewhere where we are appreciated"..But not these two!...
The Court got it right.
Is it possible that the Baker really did have religious beliefs that kept him from making this cake
Is it possible who cares what he reason was?
Bigotry is bigotry.
Zero tolerance for bigots.
The Court got it right.
Again, who cares. I don't need a bunch of conservative idiots, judges or otherwise, setting my moral compass for me.
Gee whiz, that works out just great!....Because I have zero interest in assisting you in anyway shape or form. To disagree with you makes one an idiot
Or this absolutely charming response:
And you sir, are a bigoted piece of sh1t. Hope that answers your question.
Were your Parents as enchanting as you are?
I'm quite proud to not be like my parents.
Yeah, you are a real piece of work.
"Tolerance"!...screams the left...But then can't handle it when anybody disagrees...Is it possible that the Baker really did have religious beliefs that kept him from making this cake?
Is it possible? If you said yes, then why on Earth did not these two just go to another bakery? But NO!...EVERYONE must know how important this is to our agenda!...EVERYONE must fall in line.
What a couple of whining children, they act like 99 bakeries in a row told them NO! Most sane people would say.. "This guy is a clown. let's take our business somewhere where we are appreciated"..But not these two!...
The Court got it right.
Sorry, Jaspar, but if anyone disagrees with you your response is to attack the person who disagrees with you. Your responses to LeafontheWind are pure personal attacks on someone who disagrees with you.
You are a bigot and a hypocrite that doesn’t have enough smarts to notice it or the intestinal fortitude to openly admit it.
Please resume your personal attacks on the tolerant left.
Saw this online:
15 year old: Mr. Florist, I want some flowers for my bat mitzvah.
Florist: I will not sell flowers for a religious ceremony that doesn't acknowledge the divinity of Christ. Go see the florist next door with the yellow star in the window.What sayeth the Supreme Court?
You are a bigot and a hypocrite that doesn’t have enough smarts to notice it or the intestinal fortitude to openly admit it.
No. I am someone with the audacity to have a different view and this is how YOU CHOOSE to respond.
Now ask yourself "Who has attacked who here"?
I am a Libertarian who believes in Rights and the law. The couple who wanted the cake has the right to negotiate the purchase of that cake anywhere. The Bakery owner has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases, be they tall, blue. stupid or from another planet. If you do not care for the owner's behavior, seek out another purveyor, but stomping your feet and crying while shouting about feelings makes me want to buy cakes from no one else but this guy in support of what he believes to be right.
7-2 is not even close
The Bakery owner has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases, be they tall, blue. stupid or from another planet.
Actually, you can't refuse service to a protected class (race, color, religion or national origin). Orientation, however, isn't a protected class at the Federal level.
SCOTUS deftly avoided any larger issue by simply ruling that the Colorado Civil Rights officials overstepped their bounds.
These types of cases are far from over. The religious aspect of protected class is going to come up sooner rather than later.
The Bakery owner has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases, be they tall, blue. stupid or from another planet.
Actually, you can't refuse service to a protected class (race, color, religion or national origin). Orientation, however, isn't a protected class at the Federal level.
SCOTUS deftly avoided any larger issue by simply ruling that the Colorado Civil Rights officials overstepped their bounds.
These types of cases are far from over. The religious aspect of protected class is going to come up sooner rather than later.
This is all true but in this era of extreme intellectual laziness, the SCOTUS decision is a win for right anyhow. I mean, look at the thread title to see what I mean.
Who has the authority to add LGBTQ to list of protected class citizens, does it have to go to SCOTUS again or?
Congress. Current law was established by the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Question for Mule. If a baker refused to bake a wedding cake for someone because he found out it was their third marriage and his religion prohibited divorce, would that be OK with you?
This is where a case like this gets tough. I think most people would agree that someone shouldn't be denied entrance into a restaurant for any reason other than dress/comportment/noise. But baking a cake - I think its different.
And what if a caterer is Hallal or Kosher and someone wants them to do a pig roast. Think that is a no-brainer - but how much different is it than the baker being religiously against something
Again; I don't think a place of business (hotel/restaurant) should be able to turn anyone away. Crafted items; different issue
The Bakery owner has the right to refuse service to anyone he pleases, be they tall, blue. stupid or from another planet.
Actually, you can't refuse service to a protected class (race, color, religion or national origin). Orientation, however, isn't a protected class at the Federal level
"At the federal level"..
"I think the most important thing for us that we want people to understand is that the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act is still fully in effect in Colorado. "Nothing has changed about that. It is still illegal to turn a gay couple away from a business just because of who they are." Dave Mullins
Then you attacked me.
omg
