@SCOTUSblog — In Masterpiece Cakeshop case, Supreme Court holds that Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated baker’s rights under the free exercise clause…
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony.
The case – Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission – asked the high court to balance the religious rights of the baker against the couple’s right to equal treatment under the law. Similar disputes have popped up across the U.S.
The decision to take on the case reflected renewed energy among the court’s conservative justices, whose ranks have recently been bolstered by the addition of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the high court.
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., declined to make a cake for the wedding celebration of two gay men in 2012. Phillips told the couple that he would make a birthday cake but could not make a cake that would promote same-sex marriage due to his religious beliefs.
The ruling was 7 – 2 . (pdf) Or in the words of the Associated Press, “narrowly“.
Great news!
It did not say what many think it did. They could find themselves back in front of the same a holes who wound up putting it before the supreme court.
I agree. But don’t expect the same ruling in Canada.
Silly me, of course you would not expect our esteemed courts to make such a ruling.
About time and sets the right precedent. The gay couple had other bakery options. The only violation that the gay couple suffered was hurt feelings and there is no law to protect an emotional reaction and with good reason.
Winning
So…Will the civil Courts now allow the baker to sue all the groups & the Media who demonized him… He deserves compensation from the State of Colorado…..another example of the 10th circuit acting like the Ninth circuit… corrupt social justice pushed by black robes…Abolish the Ninth Circuit & save Americans the Court costs of these mimicked clowns
Now watch the Islamists exploit this decision
We need a SCOTUS ruling that says Islam is a venomous ideology and not a religion.
Are you going to find a Muslim baker and try to get him to bake a cake he won’t want to bake?
If he made a Pussy Hat cake we know it wouldn’t have a clitoris.
You forgot to mention the Wikkens! Which is always the argument used against school vouchers … that it will fund Christian schools … and … witch schools. As for Islam? Meh. They’ve been running Madrassas for thousands of years. Enforcing the US Constitution will do nothing to “empower” Islamic Terrorism. Don’t be stupid.
No, this isn’t a strong win. On the contrary. The Court held that because the state of Colorado was so openly hostile to Phillips beliefs in this particular case, that the ruling against him could not stand for THAT reason. For example, at one hearing, humans rights commissioners (sound familiar?) compared Philips beliefs to those that fueled the Holocaust and slavery. The Court ruled that the commissioners gravely crossed the line in so doing. The Court was also explicit in noting that gay marriage was not legal in Colorado at the time, but of course it is now.
They punted on the core issue, essentially. This will come back.
“They punted on the core issue…”
I’m not so sure that is true. Equal consideration and equal treatment under the law seems to me to be a core issue.
Clearly the Colorado Civil Rights Commission abused their power. Among other things, the Justices all pointed to the disparate treatment received by the plaintiff who cited religious reasons for refusal to decorate a gay themed cake (prosecuted) and other bakers who refused to decorate anti-gay themed cakes (not prosecuted). Essentially, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission mocked his beliefs as insincere and irrelevant. It’s a classic abuse of power. I think that we all saw something like this in BC about 2 years ago where the Nazi gay city council pulled the permit for a Christian meeting that had been long planned….. Nanaimo I think.
I recognize that they did not endorse that religion is a valid reason for discrimination but neither did they affirm that religious belief is irrelevant in enforcing the law. So, yes, we probably will see this type of thing again. But there is clearly a warning sent to those who decide
They were able to decide this particular case without reaching what you term the “core controversy.” This is what the Supreme Court does; it’s what they are supposed to do. The Doctrine of Minimalism.
‘narrowly’
I think the AP people are referring to the pointy part of their heads.
vigilance. cuts both ways there mr civil ‘rights’ commission.
p.s., since when does one party’s ‘rights’ to have a buttfuk cake made trump the baker’s RIGHT to tell them to go somewhere else to get the thing iced up? hmmm?
….to get the thing lubed up ya mean…?
Couldn’t resist that..lol
The decision, regardless of reason behind it, is a good one.
I as a business owner am the sole person who decides WHO I do business with…no one, not even the state can make that determination.
This affirms that very thing….imo
“I as a business owner am the sole person who decides WHO I do business with…no one, not even the state can make that determination.”
Refuse to rent your property to someone because they are black or female, and you’ll see the problems with that.
No shoes, no shirts, no service.
7 : 2 isn’t so “narrow” … although the separate reasons given in the decisions does split it up some.
At least this doesn’t haunt the next ruling in this area. Perhaps after Ginsburg is replaced by Trump it will be a narrow 8 : 1
Rush talking about it now on his radio show…
To be fair, the AP isn’t referring to the number of judges but to the narrow exception for religion the ruling makes in Colorado’s “human rights” legislation. This wasn’t a broad victory for freedom of speech and association or anything.
Still waiting on the “travel ban” decision where yet another executive order gets tossed as unconstitutional.
You clearly have no understanding of the absolute -constitutionally granted – Executive power to keep America safe. The travel ban will prevail at the SCOTUS … and the case should have been decided already due to the urgency of keeping America safe.
You’ll be waiting a long time for that. It’s likely a 6-3 decision since it’s a Constitutional power delegated to the executive branch.
Of course, had you known anything about the Constitution, you’d already realize this.
I don’t understand why courts pick winners and loser where constitutional rights conflict. Wisdom would say to back away. By picking a winner, the government is taking the rights away from one party, denying the purpose of the constitution. By backing away the court takes rights away from no-one. In other words, the constitution should operate as a shield, not a sword.
It just did
I remember a time when, if a business couldn’t (or wouldn’t) provide the service one was looking for or didn’t have a certain item in stock, one simply went elsewhere.
So, for example, if I was looking for metal primer, if Rona didn’t have it, I might have tried Canadian Tire. Suing Rona because it didn’t carry it or have it in stock didn’t give me the right to sue the company.
That’s okay….Ford is going to get rid of that nasty old Ontario HRC!
Right?
“Right?”
Yeh right! Well it would be nice if they limited the HRC to employment, housing, and government for actual damages. Hurt feelings wouldn’t count in private pissing matches shouldn’t count..
I don’t think he’ll have the power to do that as leader of the Opposition to the new Lib/Dip coalition.
Whenever the SCOTUS decides a case 7-2 or even more lopsided … it drives home the point that the lower courts (leftist Judges) are attempting to legislate their own brand of un-constitutional lifestyle from the bench. Gay does not supersede Religious FREEDOM. Period. It is patently obvious to anyone who has actually … read … the US Constitution.
What if a cab driver refuses to transport a customer with a pet dog or alcohol?
Then I’ll catch the next cab not driven by a gracious, grateful (sic) Muzlim “immigrant”. It greatly improves my chances of NOT getting blown-up in a show of Islamic religious fervor.
Just ask for van to transport a dog (in kennel). Won’t get a Muslim driver, or for that matter, a cab. When was the last time you got into a cab with a non-muslim driver?
He has every right to do so. Freedom of association includes the right not to do business.
The cab company he works for then has every right to fire him for costing them business. Freedom of association includes the right not to employ someone.
People who are sympathetic to either the cab driver, the cab company, or the alcoholic dog have the right to speak up in public about the issue, and try to change people’s minds. Freedom of expression includes the right to persuade absent the use of force.
At some point Muslim, socialist, and faux-libertarian trolls really need to learn that people not liking you and your bull**** isn’t a legal matter.
I’ve had that happen.
response was to call the same cab co back and DEMAND a non muzzie show up.
and likewise for about 1/2 a year afterward.
I dared them to make some sort of official complaint/action/whatever
Im 67. Ive met my lifetime quota of putting up with crapola.
doesnt stop it from happening, I just dont ‘let it slide’ anymore.
I think a cab driver should have that right.
If he or his family actually own the cab or cab service i.e., are owners, not employees.
He should have baked them the cake and used chocolate laxative.
One of the greatest “accomplishments” in my life was getting my first martini at the Zam Zam Club in San Francisco without being REFUSED service and THROWN OUT by bartender Bruno Mooshei
https://punchdrink.com/articles/the-school-of-aub-zam-zam-bruno-mooshei/
Fortunately, I arrived with an “approved regular” patron who was a very close friend of mine. He was recognized, by Bruno, and lent credibility to my presence. Say the wrong thing to Bruno … or simply “look wrong” to him and he would tell you to “GET OUT”. Vociferously tell you to get the hell out of his Club. And he wasn’t kidding. Talk about refusing to bake a cake. Bruno would REFUSE service to anyone at anytime. And yet I never recall a single lawsuit against Bruno. Not by a Gay patron, nor by a Christian refused service in the Mecca-inspired bar. The Zam Zam Club is legendary … BECAUSE of … its discriminating owner.
Note to Gay whiners … MYOB. Don’t shove your “rights” down the gullets of other people’s rights. I sat and watched as Bruno would RUDELY toss out hipster after hipster entering his “Club”. There were plenty other hipster-bars where the exiled would be welcomed. Go find a Gay Baker … aren’t your kind supposed to be the creative-types who will do a better job anyway? Smh.
What makes no sense is this: marriage is supposed to be a celebration, right? Why would you ever want an officiant, or a cake shop, or a florist, or whomever to be involved in your big day if they weren’t comfortable with you–whatever the reason? I’m sure 99% of gay couples would have simply gone somewhere else for their cake, and made a mental note not to do further business with the guy. Unfortunately those 99% of logical people get lumped in with these two clowns that want to make a federal case–literally–out of it.
The only certainty in these cases is that lawyers will drag them out as far as possible and make a boat-load of money.
What was the expression from “Big Bang Theory?” He’s the guy that spits on your burger or something like that. You bake the cake and show your appropriate level of respect when deciding how to hydrate it. There’s a bigger lesson here. Don’t piss off people serving food.
What to add?…
Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the sort of Jewish apostate who hates Christianity more than she fears the God of Israel Who created her (and has been instrumental in bringing her whole nation into disrepute) has spent her entire life trying to destroy the place of both the family and of Christianity in American life.
The sooner Ruth goes to eternal punishment and makes room for someone who is serious about interpreting the law and doesn’t use it as a weapon against Christians, the better.