Gay couple cake case
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ()
Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
In a gay couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not make a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to gay marriages—marriages the Declare of Colorado itself did not acknowledge at that second. . . .
The case presents tough 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 desire to be, married but who confront discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedoms asserted here are both the release of speech and the free training of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for
'Gay cake' row: What is the dispute about?
In October , the owners of the bakery lost their appeal against the decision that their refusal to make a "gay cake" was discriminatory.
Appeal court judges said that, under commandment, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs, external.
Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious freedom and free speech".
The firm then took the case to the Supreme Court and they won.
The UK's utmost court ruled the bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
Then president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, ruled the bakers did not refuse to fulfil the order because of the customer's sexual orientation.
"They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation," she said.
"Their objection was to the communication on the cake, not to
Colorado high court to hear case against Christian baker who refused to make trans-themed cake
On the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court victory this summer for a graphic artist who didn’t want to design wedding websites for lgbtq+ couples, Colorado’s highest court said Tuesday it will now catch the case of a Christian baker who refused to construct a cake celebrating a gender transition.
The announcement by the Colorado Supreme Court is the latest development in the yearslong legal saga involving Jack Phillips and LGBTQ rights.
Phillips won a partial victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in after refusing to make a gay couple’s wedding cake.
He was later sued by Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman, after Phillips and his suburban Denver bakery refused to make a pink cake with blue frosting for her birthday and to commemorate her gender transition.
Scardina, an attorney, said she brought the lawsuit to “challenge the veracity” of Phillips’ statements that he would serve LGBTQ customers. Her attorney said her cake order was not a “set up” intended to file a lawsuit.
The Colorado Suprem
In Masterpiece, the Bakery Wins the Battle but Loses the War
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a bakery that had refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will acquire little to no applicability to future cases. The opinion is full of reaffirmations of our country’s longstanding rule that states can bar businesses that are open to the public from turning customers away because of who they are.
The case involves Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple who went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver in search of a cake for their wedding reception. When the bakery refused to sell Dave and Charlie a wedding cake because they’re male lover, the couple sued under Colorado’s longstanding nondiscrimination commandment. The bakery claimed that the Constitution’s protections of free speech and release of religion gave it the right to discriminate and to override the state’s civil rights regulation. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the bakery, and a declare appeals c