Cake for gay couple
In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to produce cake for gay wedding
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court gave a amplify to advocates of religious freedom on Monday, decision that a Colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, in a case that deeply interested marriage equality and protection from discrimination.
But the belief was a narrow one, applying to the specific facts of this case only. It gave no hint as to how the court might determine future cases involving florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who include cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to serve gay and homosexual woman customers in the stir of the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision.
In the decision, the court said legal proceedings in Colorado had shown a hostility to the baker's religious views. Monday's ruling was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the Supreme Court's lgbtq+ marriage decision.
Similar cases are now working their way through the lower courts.
"These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when t
Colorado high court to notice case against Christian baker who refused to create 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 same-sex couples, Colorado’s highest court said Tuesday it will now hear the case of a Christian baker who refused to make 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 same-sex attracted couple’s wedding cake.
He was later sued by Autumn Scardina, a transgender gal, after Phillips and his suburban Denver bakery refused to make a pink cake with blue frosting for her birthday and to celebrate 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 Supreme Court didn’t describe how or why it made the determination to hear the case. It was announced in a
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 queer couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will hold 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 same-sex attracted, 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 statute. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the bakery, and a mention appeals court upheld its decision.
In reversing the drop court’s ruling, the Supreme Court focused on how t
'Gay cake' row: What is the dispute about?
In October , the owners of the bakery lost their appeal against the judgment that their refusal to make a "gay cake" was discriminatory.
Appeal court judges said that, under regulation, 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 letter on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee."
And from there, Mr Lee took his case to Europe, argu
.