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 2 | Version 3 |
|---|---|
| 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 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. | 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. |
| 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. | 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. |
| They complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided against Phillips. | They complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided against Phillips. |
| 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. | 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 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”. | 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”. |
| 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. | 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. |
| “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. | “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. |
| 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 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’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 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. |
| “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.” | “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.” |
| 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. | 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. | 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. |
| Donald Trump Jr, the president’s son, reacted to the decision by mocking media coverage that described it as narrow. He tweeted: “I am reading about a 7 - 2 vote. Pretty sure that’s not narrowly... At least 2 dem leaning justices must have agreed.” But critics on Twitter quickly upbraided him, pointing out that it was the legal decision that was “narrow”, not the vote among the justices. | |
| The American Principles Project, a conservative think tank, welcomed the decision as a victory for religious rights over LGBTQ rights. Terry Schilling, its executive director, said: “Today’s emphatic 7-2 ruling is a tremendous victory for Jack Phillips and all Americans who desire to follow their faith and conscience. It also serves as a condemnation of the institutional anti-Christian bigotry that has grown rampant over the past decade.”But the Human Rights Campaign, America’s biggest LGBTQ civil rights organization, noted the limited frame of reference of the ruling. Chad Griffin, its president, said: “In today’s narrow ruling against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the supreme court acknowledged that LGBTQ people are equal and have a right to live free from the indignity of discrimination. Anti-LGBTQ extremists did not win the sweeping ‘license to discriminate’ they have been hoping for – and today’s ruling does not change our nation’s longstanding civil rights laws.” | |
| Tom Perez, chairman of the Democratic National Committee, said: “This case was never just about a wedding cake. It was about all people – no matter who they are – having the right to celebrate their love without facing discrimination. The Democratic party believes that no individual has a license to discriminate. We believe in the dignity of every human being. And we will continue to fight for equality for LGBTQ people in all areas of our society – from housing and healthcare, to bathrooms and boardrooms, to bakeries and the ballot box.” | |
| US supreme court | US supreme court |
| LGBT rights | LGBT rights |
| Colorado | Colorado |
| news | news |
| Share on Facebook | Share on Facebook |
| Share on Twitter | Share on Twitter |
| Share via Email | Share via Email |
| Share on LinkedIn | Share on LinkedIn |
| Share on Pinterest | Share on Pinterest |
| Share on Google+ | Share on Google+ |
| Share on WhatsApp | Share on WhatsApp |
| Share on Messenger | Share on Messenger |
| Reuse this content | Reuse this content |