Thread: Supreme Court will hear case of Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for s

Supreme Court will hear case of Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple

David G Savage
June 26, 2017 7:05 am

Supreme Court justices voted to hear an appeal from the owner of a Colorado bakery who refused to create and design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The high court has agreed to hear a major case pitting conservative Christian beliefs against gay rights, and decide whether some business owners may cite their religious views as a reason for refusing to serve same-sex couples.

The justices voted to hear an appeal from the owner of a Colorado bakery who refused to create and design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

The case will be heard in the fall, and it could have a wide impact in the states that prohibit discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.

No federal law requires businesses to serve all customers without regard to their sexual orientation, but 21 states have “public accommodations” laws that prohibit such discrimination against gays and lesbians. They include California and six other states in the West, Illinois and three other states in the upper Midwest, and 10 states on the East Coast from Maryland to Maine. No state in the South or on the Great Plains has such a law.
Supreme Court rejects 2nd Amendment challenge to California limits on carrying guns in public

Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., was charged with violating the state’s anti-discrimination law, which says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation.

The state commission held that his refusal to make the wedding cake amounted to discriminatory conduct, and the state courts upheld that decision.

But Phillips appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he deserved a religious exemption based on the 1st Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. His lawyers described him as a “cake artist” who will “not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to his understanding of biblical teaching.” They also said he has refused to make cakes to celebrate Halloween or created baked goods that have an “anti-American or anti-family themes” or carry profane messages.

In 2012, he said he politely declined to make a wedding cake for Charles Craig and David Mullins, who had planned to marry in Massachusetts but then have a reception in their home state of Colorado.

They lodged a complaint with the state civil rights commission, which ruled against Phillips and ordered him to provide wedding cakes on an equal basis for same-sex couples. His lawyers say he refused to comply while his appeal proceeded.

“They said you have to create cakes for same-sex couples, so he removed himself from the market. He chose to stop making wedding cakes,” said Jeremy Tedesco, a lawyer for the Alliance Defending Freedom, who appealed on his behalf.

Lawyers for the state commission and the American Civil Liberties Union urged the court to turn down the appeal in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They said it could open a “gaping hole” in civil rights laws if business owners could cite their religious beliefs as a valid basis for denying service to certain customers.

Two years ago, the justices turned down a similar appeal from a wedding photographer in New Mexico. Since then, the issue has arisen in several other states whose laws forbid discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Separately Monday, the court in a 6-3 ruling struck down an Arkansas law regarding birth certificates that prevented adding the names of both persons in a same-sex union. The law called for including the biological parent. But the court, in an unsigned opinion, said this rule denied the same-sex couple the same rights as opposite-sex couples and was therefore unconstitutional. Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Neil M. Gorsuch dissented.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...626-story.html

I disagree with the premise of this lawsuit. I wish people of religious faith who choose to be in business could just learn to treat everyone in our country legally as a customer without regard to race or religion, whether it be the customer's or their own.

This case is really all about greed and an agenda, not right or wrong. From what I understand about the case, the baker referred the homosexual couple to another baker that would make the cake. No one should feel coerced into violating their religious convictions over a cake.

This is a freedom of speech issue. Just as the government cannot restrict your ability to speak freely, it cannot force you to say things you don't want to say. Artists are protected in their freedom of expression by the same legal foundation of freedom of speech and so also are they protected from being forced to say something they don't want to by the same freedom of speech.

A baker creating a cake with decorated frosting is an artist. Making decorations on a cake is an artistic expression. If a cake decorator does not want to express something that they do not want to express, then no law can make them do so.

This has nothing to do with freedom of religion, but perhaps those who resent the baker being forced to decorate a homosexual oriented wedding cake don't really care about freedom of speech.

Originally Posted by pkskyali

This is a freedom of speech issue. Just as the government cannot restrict your ability to speak freely, it cannot force you to say things you don't want to say. Artists are protected in their freedom of expression by the same legal foundation of freedom of speech and so also are they protected from being forced to say something they don't want to by the same freedom of speech.

A baker creating a cake with decorated frosting is an artist. Making decorations on a cake is an artistic expression. If a cake decorator does not want to express something that they do not want to express, then no law can make them do so.

This has nothing to do with freedom of religion, but perhaps those who resent the baker being forced to decorate a homosexual oriented wedding cake don't really care about freedom of speech.

You make some good points, however, I disagree that freedom of religion has nothing to do with it.

Would you really want to eat a cake, or any other food, that was made by anyone who doesn't like you or want you as a customer ???

Originally Posted by MW

... No one should feel coerced into violating their religious convictions over a cake.

Originally Posted by MW

You make some good points, however, I disagree that freedom of religion has nothing to do with it.

If the idea that nobody should be coerced [by the law] into violating their religious convictions is all you got, then you have nothing. There are many religious convictions that violate the law and law remains the authority. If you think you should be able to have more than one wife as both Muslims and Mormons believe as a religious conviction, that's too bad, the law prevents you from doing that.

If your religious convictions place restraints on how you provide some service to the public in the public sphere, then you should depend on your basic freedoms first. Your religious convictions should provide no legal protections from the difficulties that you will confront in a society where people are free to embrace any religious values they want or none at all.