Supreme Court rules in case of Colorado bakery

[Mister Emu]

Justices side with Colorado baker on same-sex wedding cake

A victory for religious liberty. The right to refuse to service a religious event on religious grounds should have been obvious. Sad that it had to go all the way through the Colorado system to the Supreme Court to find some sense.

 

[HonestJoe]

A victory for religious liberty. The right to refuse to service a religious event on religious grounds should have been obvious.

That isn’t what the ruling actually said though;

But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.
The justices’ limited ruling turned on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.

 

[Shad]

Justices side with Colorado baker on same-sex wedding cake

A victory for religious liberty. The right to refuse to service a religious event on religious grounds should have been obvious. Sad that it had to go all the way through the Colorado system to the Supreme Court to find some sense.

No the case said little about religious liberty. The ruling was the Colorado government agency was biased and its judgement was over the top. Someone had an axe to grind and did so by use of their power in government.

 

[Shiranui117]

NPR's reporting of the same case says the following:

Writing for the case, Justice Anthony Kennedy said that while it is unexceptional that Colorado law "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions that are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

He said that in this case the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, understandably had difficulty in knowing where to draw the line because the state law at the time afforded store keepers some latitude to decline creating specific messages they considered offensive. Kennedy pointed to the Colorado commission's decision allowing a different baker to refuse to put an anti-gay message on a cake.
. . .
"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue respect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market," Kennedy said.​

The bolded text in particular is some spicy meatballs. Also, the baker was previously recorded saying: "I'm just trying to preserve my right as an artist to decide which artistic endeavors I'm going to do and which ones I'm not."

If anything, the Supreme Court overturning the lower court's ruling preserves the rights of every business owner to not go against their own particular morals. If religious businesses would be forced to provide services for LGBT events and organizations, then LGBT-friendly businesses would be forced to provide for anti-LGBT events and organizations.

 

[Mister Emu]

That isn’t what the ruling actually said though;

Underlying the ruling that his religious objections weren't given proper respectful consideration is the principle that sincere religious belief can be a reason to refuse service.
A quote from what the opinion actually says:
"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression"

The ruling was never going to be so broad nor so precise as to set down in what circumstances a religious conviction over-rules a public accommodation law and when it does not. That the principle was upheld is a victory.

 

[Altfish]

So, if I were to start a religion that objected to (say) black people or Catholics can I now get away of refusing to bake a cake for them?

 

[Valjean]

It wasn't long ago that the LDS church characterized blacks as a race cursed by God -- not that the more mainstream denominations haven't made the same argument.
Couldn't the same religious objections be made to serving them, as well?

 

[BSM1]

So, if I were to start a religion that objected to (say) black people or Catholics can I now get away of refusing to bake a cake for them?

Absolutely. Same as if the KKK came in and asked you to bake a cake in the shape of a burning cross to send to said black and/or Catholic customers.

 

[Revoltingest]

So, if I were to start a religion that objected to (say) black people or Catholics can I now get away of refusing to bake a cake for them?

The first one would run smack dab into the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
As for the 2nd, it might depend upon the message they wanted added to the cake.
For example, I'd never bake a cake which said....
"Jesus wants abortionists to cook in the lake of fire".

 

[Jainarayan]

So, if I were to start a religion that objected to (say) black people or Catholics can I now get away of refusing to bake a cake for them?

Or someone who might have an intense opposition to religion might be able to refuse service to someone for a religious purpose. Let's say a First Holy Communion cake saying God Bless X on his (or her) First Holy Communion. Sauce for the goose.

 

[fantome profane]

The first one would run smack dab into the 1866 Civil Rights Act.
As for the 2nd, it might depend upon the message they wanted added to the cake.
For example, I'd never bake a cake which said....
"Jesus wants abortionists to cook in the lake of fire".

In this specific case they never got that far. The people who wanted the cake were refused before they could even talk about what the cake would look like. So it was not about the cake, the message written on it, the decorations, the colour of the frosting etc. They never talked about any of that.

 

[Revoltingest]

In this specific case they never got that far. The people who wanted the cake were refused before they could even talk about what the cake would look like. So it was not about the cake, the message written on it, the decorations, the colour of the frosting etc. They never talked about any of that.

I read about the ruling.
I was answering the poster's speculation about new legal views towards other groups.

 

[Phantasman]

So, if I were to start a religion that objected to (say) black people or Catholics can I now get away of refusing to bake a cake for them?

Only if they're gay, I guess.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Help me out here. What's the substantive difference between:

• a restaurant refuses to serve an mixed-race couple,
• a baker refuses to help celebrate a same-sex marriage, and
• a Jewish printer refuses to produce posters for the Klan ...

 

[fantome profane]

I read about the ruling.
I was answering the poster's speculation about new legal views towards other groups.

I responded because it is commonly assumed that the baker must have been asked to write something on the cake that went against their religion. And that may have happened in some similar case, but not in this one.

 

[Mister Emu]

Help me out here. What's the substantive difference between:

• a restaurant refuses to serve an mixed-race couple,
• a baker refuses to help celebrate a same-sex marriage, and
• a Jewish printer refuses to produce posters for the Klan ...

I would suggest the second and third are concerned with the activity/message and the first is concerned with the people being served.

 

[Revoltingest]

I would suggest the second and third are concerned with the activity/message and the first is concerned with the people being served.

Also, the first is prohibited by federal law.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Or someone who might have an intense opposition to religion might be able to refuse service to someone for a religious purpose. Let's say a First Holy Communion cake saying God Bless X on his (or her) First Holy Communion. Sauce for the goose.

If I get a bakery, I'm going to refuse to make cakes for Catholic weddings because it imposes a serious infringement upon my beliefs to do such a thing where the highest ranking officials are accomplices is child abuse. Nor will I make cakes for Evangelicals, as they not only infringe upon my religious views, they want to impose their own religious views of morality upon me, and everybody else.

 

[ecco]

Opinion analysis: Court rules (narrowly) for baker in same-sex-wedding-cake case [Updated] - SCOTUSblog

Although Phillips prevailed today, the opinion by Justice Anthony Kennedy rested largely on the majority’s conclusion that the Colorado administrative agency that ruled against Phillips treated him unfairly by being too hostile to his sincere religious beliefs.
​

So, tomorrow many obviously gay couples are going to go to bakeries, not in Colorado, and ask for a cake that says "Jon loves Ed" or "homosexuals rule" and another case will eventually come up before SCOTUS where the Justices will have to actually address the issue.

 

[ecco]

I guess if I ever have to go to Court I'll hope the courtroom looks like this...

Then, if found guilty I will take it all the way to the Supreme Court on the basis that the judge was too hostile to my atheistic views.