Wedding cake case supreme court
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ()
Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
In a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages the Express of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. . . .
The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to guard the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedoms asserted here are both the release of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for
How a same-sex wedding cake controversy made it all the way to the Supreme Court
Jack Phillips said he’s not just a baker, but also an artist.
"Part of it is icing. Part of it is piping. Part of it is airbrush to create the leaves and the flowers," Phillips told ABC News’ "Nightline" co-anchor Juju Chang in an interview last week. "We paint on cakes, we sculpt cakes, we sketch on cakes."
Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, said his Christian faith guides everything in his life -- including his refusal to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because it would have violated his religious beliefs.
"That cake is that strong of a message in our culture, and marriage in general between a gentleman and a woman across all cultures, religions, is an inherently religious event," Phillips said.
The legal conflict between Phillips, who claimed religious liberty, and the same-sex couple for whom he refused to bake a cake, who claimed discrimination, made it all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. On Monday, the court ruled i
Colorado court dismisses suit against baker who wouldn't verb transgender-themed cake
Colorado’s top court on Tuesday ducked the question of whether a Christian baker had the right to refuse to create a cake for a customer celebrating a gender transition by dismissing the discrimination case on procedural grounds.
Lower courts in Colorado had concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop and the bakery’s owner, Jack Phillips, had violated Autumn Scardina’s rights by refusing to make her a pink cake with blue frosting because of her identity as a transgender woman.
Phillips, whose prior refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple was at the center of a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, had on appeal urged the Colorado Supreme Court to conclude that requiring him to make the cake would infringe his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
But the state high court on a vote avoided that issue entirely by instead concluding that under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Behave, Scardina, a lawyer, was not permitted to sue the baker in following an earlie
In Masterpiece, the Bakery Wins the Battle but Loses the War
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a bakery that had refused to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will hold little to no applicability to future cases. The opinion is full of reaffirmations of our country’s longstanding rule that states can bar businesses that are open to the public from turning customers away because of who they are.
The case involves Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple who went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver in search of a cake for their wedding reception. When the bakery refused to sell Dave and Charlie a wedding cake because they’re gay, the couple sued under Colorado’s longstanding nondiscrimination law. The bakery claimed that the Constitution’s protections of free speech and independence of religion gave it the right to discriminate and to override the state’s civil rights law. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the bakery, and a declare appeals c