Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker who wouldn’t make same-sex wedding cake

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is setting aside a Colorado court ruling against a baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

The justices' limited ruling Monday turns on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy says in his majority opinion that the issue "must await further elaboration." Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s

10 comments

    • Vast Right Wing Conspiracy

      Well they Fox 17 re-wrote the article to 7-2 and took out the “Narrowly” comment. Must have been some one who was upset with the ruling that wrote the article. Its sad that America does not have true journalists anymore, just marxist propaganda specialists.

  • C

    A win for the good guys. Too bad that down the road, the court will find a way to support the deviant lifestyle of a few aberrant individuals.

  • Kevin Rahe

    At least the Supreme Court sees that you can’t force people to respect and promote acts and relationships freely chosen by others.

  • Kevin Rahe

    “whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people” has NEVER been an issue in modern times, not even for Mr. Phillips or others like him, such as the florist in the other case noted. They have always been willing to serve such customers in ways that don’t particularly respect or promote freely-chosen acts or associations that the customer engages in that the proprietor disagrees are a good thing.

  • Pips

    It wasn’t a ruling for the baker, it was a ruling against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruling that the commission was hostile towards the baker’s religious views protected under the first amendment.
    “(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s
    treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear
    and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating
    his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners
    at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that
    religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere
    or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and
    characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of
    his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.
    No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they
    mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs
    filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality
    of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.
    Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’
    case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages
    who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled
    against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested
    wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the
    baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases
    involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism.
    The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other
    products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found
    Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’
    brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern
    that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection.”

    It’s essentially a meaningless ruling and not a win for anyone. The media of course can’t be bothered to read the opinion to report on it correctly.

    • Kevin Rahe

      On the other hand, if the judges equated refusing to make a cake that specifically promotes a homosexual union to refusing to serve a same-sex couple a meal in a restaurant, it seems that at least a majority of them would have found a way to uphold the previous decision.