Gay wedding cake ruling
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ()
Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
In a same-sex 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 create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages the Articulate of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. . . .
The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to guard the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face 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 exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for
US Supreme Court backs Colorado baker's lgbtq+ wedding cake snub
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The Colorado state court had found that baker Jack Phillips' verdict to turn away David Mullins and Charlie Craig in was unlawful discrimination.
But the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a vote that that judgment had violated Mr Phillips' rights.
The conservative Christian cited his religious values in refusing service.
Gay rights groups feared a ruling against the couple could set a precedent for treating homosexual marriages differently from heterosexual unions.
But the Supreme Court's judgment instead focuses specifically on Mr Phillips' case.
The choice does not declare that florists, photographers, or other services can now decline to work with gay couples.
The judgment comes three years after the Supreme Court made gay marriage the statute of the territory in its landmark Obergefell v Hodges decision.
What did Monday's r Colorado court dismisses suit against baker who wouldn't make transgender-themed cake
Colorado’s top court on Tuesday ducked the question of whether a Christian baker had the right to refuse to create a cake for a customer celebrating a gender transition by dismissing the discrimination case on procedural grounds.
Lower courts in Colorado had concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop and the bakery’s owner, Jack Phillips, had violated Autumn Scardina’s rights by refusing to make her a pink cake with blue frosting because of her identity as a transgender woman.
Phillips, whose prior refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple was at the center of a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, had on appeal urged the Colorado Supreme Court to conclude that requiring him to make the cake would infringe his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
But the state high court on a vote avoided that issue entirely by instead concluding that under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Scardina, a lawyer, was not permitted to sue the baker in following an earlie
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 lgbtq+ couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will possess 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 lgbtq+, 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 mention appeals c
Colorado court dismisses suit against baker who wouldn't make transgender-themed cake
Colorado’s top court on Tuesday ducked the question of whether a Christian baker had the right to refuse to create a cake for a customer celebrating a gender transition by dismissing the discrimination case on procedural grounds.
Lower courts in Colorado had concluded that Masterpiece Cakeshop and the bakery’s owner, Jack Phillips, had violated Autumn Scardina’s rights by refusing to make her a pink cake with blue frosting because of her identity as a transgender woman.
Phillips, whose prior refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple was at the center of a case that went to the U.S. Supreme Court, had on appeal urged the Colorado Supreme Court to conclude that requiring him to make the cake would infringe his free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment.
But the state high court on a vote avoided that issue entirely by instead concluding that under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, Scardina, a lawyer, was not permitted to sue the baker in following an earlie
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 lgbtq+ couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will possess 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 lgbtq+, 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 mention appeals c