Supreme court ruling on gay wedding cake
In a defeat for gay rights, the Supreme Court's conservative majority ruled Friday that a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples.
The decision was split among ideological lines, with the conservative majority ruling that the First Amendment bars Colorado from forcing "an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance."
One of the court's liberal justices wrote in a dissent that the decision's effect is to “mark gays and lesbians for second-class status” and that it opens the door to other discrimination.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court’s six conservative justices that the First Amendment “envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they want, not as the government demands.” Gorsuch said that the court has drawn-out held that “the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.”
T
Baker&#;s refusal to bake gay wedding cake
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, U.S. ___; S. Ct. ()
Summary
In a decision, the US Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) that a baker could not verb to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple. Jack Phillips, owner of Colorado bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because same-sex marriage conflicted with his religious views. The couple filed a complaint with the Commission on the basis that the refusal violated mention anti-discrimination laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating against customers based on sexual orientation. The Commission ordered the baker to bake the cake. The baker appealed to the Court of Appeals which agreed with the Commission. The baker appealed to the US Supreme Court (Court), which overturned the Commission&#;s decision on the basis that the Commission had not acted with the required neutrality towards religion.
The Court did not take the opportunity to decide o
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 include 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 express appeals c
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 Mention 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 shield 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 autonomy of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for