The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-gender couple on basis of religious liberty.
The justices’ decision overturned what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the commission violated Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.
Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion that the larger issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay people “must await further elaboration” in the courts. 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-gender wedding.
The disputes, Kennedy wrote, “must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.”
Big Supreme Court ruling for Baker just out!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 5, 2018
Agudath Israel of America, which had urged the Supreme Court in its amicus curiae brief to uphold the religious rights of Mr. Phillips, applauded the court’s decision but expressed concern that the decision did not provide clarity on the substantive question of whether Mr. Phillips and other such proprietors faced with similar conflicts will find free exercise protection within the First Amendment. (Read the full statement below)
7-2 for Christian baker: NARROW VICTORY!
5-4 for Obamacare: LAW OF THE LAND
— Razor (@hale_razor) June 4, 2018
The same-gender couple at the heart of the case, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, complained to the Colorado commission in 2012 after they visited Phillips’ Masterpiece Cakeshop in suburban Denver and the baker quickly told them he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration.
Colorado law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, and the commission concluded that Phillips’ refusal violated the law, despite Phillips’ argument that he is opposed to same-gedner marriage on religious grounds. Colorado state courts upheld the determination.
But when the justices heard arguments in December, Kennedy was plainly bothered by comments by a commission member that the justice said disparaged religion. The commissioner seemed “neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs,” Kennedy said in December.
That same sentiment suffused his opinion on Monday. “The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” he wrote.
Liberal justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the conservative justices in the outcome. Kagan wrote separately to emphasize the limited ruling.
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.
In a statement issued after the ruling Monday, Phillips’ Supreme Court lawyer praised the decision.
“Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that,” said Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel who argued Phillips’ case.
Waggoner said Phillips is willing to sell ready-made products to anyone who enters his store. But, “he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held beliefs,” she said.
Phillips was at his shop Monday morning, where he was busy answering the phone and getting congratulations from his supporters in person, including his pastor. One woman brought him a bouquet of flowers and others hugged him.
The American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the couple in its legal fight, said it was pleased the court did not endorse a broad religion-based exemption from anti-discrimination laws.
“The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people.” said Louise Melling, the ACLU’s deputy legal director.
Several legal disputes are pending over wedding services, similar to the Phillips case. Video producers, graphic artists and florists are among business owners who say they oppose same-gender marriage on religious grounds and don’t want to participate in same-gender weddings.
Barronelle Stutzman, a florist in Richland, Washington, has appealed a state Supreme Court ruling that found she violated state law for refusing to provide the wedding flowers for two men who were about to be married.
The justices could decide what to do with that appeal by the end of June.
The following is a statement from Agudath Israel of America:
(AP)
7 Responses
All the Supreme Court held was that they didn’t get a fair trial because of obvious and open prejudice by the administrative agency and sent the matter for retrial.
Is it legal for a litvish bakery to refuse making a cake for a chassidish wedding or rebbes tish. I wonder what the agudah would say to that?
The anti-religious bigots of the Colorado “Civil Right” Commission got quite a whipping from the Supreme Court; see https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf pg 15 et seq.
Mazal tov
> akuperma
“didn’t get a fair trial because of obvious and open prejudice”
But the point seems to be that an example of such “open prejudice” is the fact that the commission treated pro- and anti- gay marriage advocates differently. Thus when anti-gay marriage advocates asked a cake shop to make an anti-gay cake they refused and the cake shop was acquitted by the commission (this happened at least three times). So implicitly the ruling comes “close” to saying that discrimination between pro and anti-gay marriage messages is itself evidence of religious discrimination.
akuperma, it was even more problematic than that
The majority implied that they can’t be forced to 1) bake [something difficult to enforce in any case].But to hold in event on premises ,possibly that should be forced
due to 2) the explicit prejudice [would it be implicit,then…]
Fortunately ,Alito,
Thomas,and Gorsuch to a lesser extent
argued all this and more in their concurrences
Takse2,
Those who make Leitzunus for things like this, fall under the rubric of
Rabbenu Yona Shaar 3
georgeg,
Go through it .It was more sly than either you or the headline imply,
GOOD FOR THE BAKER AND GOOD FOR THE COURT. FINALLY A LITTLE SANITY IN THE WORLD