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 4 | Version 5 |
|---|---|
| Supreme court sides with baker who refused to make gay wedding cake | Supreme court sides with baker who refused to make gay wedding cake |
| (about 2 hours later) | |
| The US supreme court has ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple for religious reasons, although the justices avoided a wider ruling on religious exemptions for businesses. | The US supreme court has ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple for religious reasons, although the justices 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. The two men complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC), which decided against Phillips. | |
| But the case went all the way to the supreme court. On Monday it 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”. | But the case went all the way to the supreme court. On Monday it 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”. |
| Writing for the court’s majority, justice Anthony Kennedy said the CCRC showed “hostility” to Phillips’ 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 CCRC showed “hostility” to Phillips’ 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,” Kennedy wrote, “but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” | “The laws and the constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights,” Kennedy wrote, “but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.” |
| 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 did not want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. Since the Masterpiece incident in 2012, same-sex marriage has become legal across the US. | Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the supreme court from a florist who did not want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding. Since the Masterpiece incident in 2012, same-sex marriage has become legal across the US. |
| 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.” Critics on Twitter quickly upbraided him, pointing out that it was the legal decision that was “narrow”, not the vote among the justices. | |
| The attorney general, Jeff Sessions, applauded the outcome. “The first amendment prohibits governments from discriminating against citizens on the basis of religious beliefs,” he said. “The supreme court rightly concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to show tolerance and respect for Mr Phillips’ religious beliefs. | |
| “In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom first amendment rights of all Americans.” | “In this case and others, the Department of Justice will continue to vigorously defend the free speech and religious freedom first amendment rights of all Americans.” |
| The American Principles Project, a conservative thinktank, welcomed the decision. 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.”Among liberal groups, the Human Rights Campaign, America’s biggest LGBT civil rights organization, noted the limited frame of reference of the ruling. | |
| Chad Griffin, its president, said: “In today’s narrow ruling … the supreme court acknowledged that LGBT people are equal and have a right to live free from the indignity of discrimination. Anti-LGBT 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.” | Chad Griffin, its president, said: “In today’s narrow ruling … the supreme court acknowledged that LGBT people are equal and have a right to live free from the indignity of discrimination. Anti-LGBT 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. | 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 LGBT people in all areas of our society – from housing and healthcare, to bathrooms and boardrooms, to bakeries and the ballot box.” | “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 LGBT people in all areas of our society – from housing and healthcare, to bathrooms and boardrooms, to bakeries and the ballot box.” |
| Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the supreme court had “missed an opportunity” that would have ”sent a strong message discouraging and dissuading discrimination by public accommodations against people based on their LGBT status”. | Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, said the supreme court had “missed an opportunity” that would have ”sent a strong message discouraging and dissuading discrimination by public accommodations against people based on their LGBT status”. |
| 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 |