This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/law/2018/jun/04/gay-cake-ruling-supreme-court-same-sex-wedding-colorado-baker-decision-latest

The article has changed 12 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 0 Version 1
Supreme court sides with baker who refused to make gay wedding cake Supreme court sides with baker who refused to make gay wedding cake
(35 minutes later)
The supreme court has ruled in favor of the Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple for religious reasons, though the court avoided ruling on the wider question of religious objections by providers of services. The US supreme court has ruled in favor of the Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple for religious reasons – but avoided a wider ruling on religious exemptions for businesses.
Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop refused to provide a custom cake for the same-sex wedding of David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012. Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012, only for owner Jack Phillips to say he would not provide a cake for a same sex couple.
On Monday the justices, in a 7-2 decision, faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s handling of the claims brought against Phillips, saying it had showed a hostility to religion. They complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided against Phillips.
The commission had said Phillips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law that bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation by rebuffing the couple. But the case went all the way to the supreme court which, on Monday, ruled 7-2 that the commission had violated Phillips’ rights under the first amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression.
The supreme court justices voted that the commission violated Phillips’ rights under the first amendment. The court did not address the wider principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people, saying this “must await further elaboration”.
But the court did not issue a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. Writing for the court’s majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed “hostility” to his religious beliefs in a proceeding that found he violated the law and ordered him to undergo anti-discrimination training.
Justice Anthony Kennedy says in his majority opinion that the issue “must await further elaboration”. “The laws and the constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression,” Kennedy wrote.
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. The decision focused narrowly on the handling of Phillips’ case, however, leaving open the question of whether anti-discrimination laws should supercede religious beliefs in future cases.
The court began by noting that 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 protect 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 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,” Kennedy wrote.
“The second,” Kennedy writes, “is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the first amendment.” “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. That requirement, however, was not met here.”
“Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the state’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions.” Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, the court’s two most liberal justices, dissented. They said they would have upheld the finding of the commission, which decided that Phillips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law that bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.
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. Since the Masterpiece incident in 2012, same sex marriage has become legal across the country.
US supreme courtUS supreme court
LGBT rightsLGBT rights
ColoradoColorado
newsnews
Share on FacebookShare on Facebook
Share on TwitterShare on Twitter
Share via EmailShare via Email
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn
Share on PinterestShare on Pinterest
Share on Google+Share on Google+
Share on WhatsAppShare on WhatsApp
Share on MessengerShare on Messenger
Reuse this contentReuse this content