[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

"Leftists Make Desperate Attempt to Discredit Photo of Abrego Garcia's MS-13 Tattoos. Here Are Receipts"

"Trump Administration Freezes $2 Billion After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands"on After Harvard Refuses to Meet Demands

"Doctors Committing Insurance Fraud to Conceal Trans Procedures, Texas Children’s Whistleblower Testifies"

"Left Using '8647' Symbol for Violence Against Trump, Musk"

KawasakiÂ’s new rideable robohorse is straight out of a sci-fi novel

"Trade should work for America, not rule it"

"The Stakes Couldn’t Be Higher in Wisconsin’s Supreme Court Race – What’s at Risk for the GOP"

"How Trump caught big-government fans in their own trap"

‘Are You Prepared for Violence?’

Greek Orthodox Archbishop gives President Trump a Cross, tells him "Make America Invincible"

"Trump signs executive order eliminating the Department of Education!!!"

"If AOC Is the Democratic Future, the Party Is Even Worse Off Than We Think"

"Ending EPA Overreach"

Closest Look Ever at How Pyramids Were Built

Moment the SpaceX crew Meets Stranded ISS Crew

The Exodus Pharaoh EXPLAINED!

Did the Israelites Really Cross the Red Sea? Stunning Evidence of the Location of Red Sea Crossing!

Are we experiencing a Triumph of Orthodoxy?

Judge Napolitano with Konstantin Malofeev (Moscow, Russia)

"Trump Administration Cancels Most USAID Programs, Folds Others into State Department"

Introducing Manus: The General AI Agent

"Chinese Spies in Our Military? Straight to Jail"

Any suggestion that the USA and NATO are "Helping" or have ever helped Ukraine needs to be shot down instantly

"Real problem with the Palestinians: Nobody wants them"

ACDC & The Rolling Stones - Rock Me Baby

Magnus Carlsen gives a London System lesson!

"The Democrats Are Suffering Through a Drought of Generational Talent"

7 Tactics Of The Enemy To Weaken Your Faith

Strange And Biblical Events Are Happening

Every year ... BusiesT casino gambling day -- in Las Vegas

Trump’s DOGE Plan Is Legally Untouchable—Elon Musk Holds the Scalpel

Palestinians: What do you think of the Trump plan for Gaza?

What Happens Inside Gaza’s Secret Tunnels? | Unpacked

Hamas Torture Bodycam Footage: "These Monsters Filmed it All" | IDF Warfighter Doron Keidar, Ep. 225

EXPOSED: The Dark Truth About the Hostages in Gaza

New Task Force Ready To Expose Dark Secrets

Egypt Amasses Forces on Israel’s Southern Border | World War 3 About to Start?

"Trump wants to dismantle the Education Department. Here’s how it would work"

test

"Federal Workers Concerned That Returning To Office Will Interfere With Them Not Working"

"Yes, the Democrats Have a Governing Problem – They Blame America First, Then Govern Accordingly"

"Trump and His New Frenemies, Abroad and at Home"

"The Left’s Sin Is of Omission and Lost Opportunity"

"How Trump’s team will break down the woke bureaucracy"

Pete Hegseth will be confirmed in a few minutes

"Greg Gutfeld Cooks Jessica Tarlov and Liberal Media in Brilliant Take on Trump's First Day"

"They Gave Trump the Center, and He Took It"

French doors

America THEN and NOW in 65 FASCINATING Photos

"CNN pundit Scott Jennings goes absolutely nuclear on Biden’s ‘farce’ of a farewell speech — and he’s not alone"


Status: Not Logged In; Sign In

The Left's War On Christians
See other The Left's War On Christians Articles

Title: Supreme Court sides with Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple
Source: [None]
URL Source: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201 ... -cake-for-same-sex-couple.html
Published: Jun 4, 2018
Author: Bill Mears, Judson Berger
Post Date: 2018-06-04 10:42:06 by Justified
Keywords: None
Views: 3813
Comments: 21

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker -- while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

At issue was a July 2012 encounter between the couple and baker Jack Phillips.

The battle has since developed into perhaps the most closely watched appeal so far this term before the high court.

At the time, Charlie Craig and David Mullins of Denver visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to buy a custom-made wedding cake. Phillips refused his services when told it was for a same-sex couple. A state civil rights commission sanctioned Phillips after a formal complaint from the gay couple.

Mullins has described their case as symbolizing “the rights of gay people to receive equal service in business … about basic access to public life."

But the Trump administration backed Phillips, who was represented in court by the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian nonprofit. He had lost at every step in the legal appeals process, bringing the case down to the Supreme Court.

Phillips has said he lost business and had to let employees go because of the controversy.

And he has maintained that it’s his choice: "It's not about turning away these customers, it's about doing a cake for an event -- a religious sacred event -- that conflicts with my conscience," he said last year.

The court in December specifically examined whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the local baker to create commercial "expression" violated his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage. By wading again into the culture wars, the justices had to confront recent decisions on both gay rights and religious liberty: a 2015 landmark opinion legalizing same-sex marriage nationwide and a separate 2014 decision affirming the right of some companies to act on their owner's faith by refusing to provide contraception to its workers.

The Trump administration agreed with Phillips' legal claims to a large extent. Attorney General Jeff Sessions in October issued broad guidance to executive branch agencies, reiterating the government should respect religious freedom, which in the Justice Department's eyes extends to people, businesses and organizations.

But civil rights groups were concerned the conservative majority on the court may be ready to peel back protections for groups with a history of enduring discrimination – and predicted that giving businesses the right to refuse service to certain customers would undermine non-discrimination laws and hurt minorities.

Post Comment   Private Reply   Ignore Thread  


TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

#10. To: Justified (#0)

Below is the Syllabus of the Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion. It is a synopsis of the Opinion, but is not part of the official opinion.

The opinion of the court goes to page 18. Kagan and Gorsuch filed concurring opinions. Thomas, with whom Gorsuch joined, filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Ginsburg, with whom Sotomayor joined, filed a dissenting opinion. Altogether, the opinions span 59 pages.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL.

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO

No. 16–111. Argued December 5, 2017—Decided June 4, 2018

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wed­ding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex mar­riages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes. The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) pursuant to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA),which prohibits, as relevant here, discrimination based on sexual ori­entation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . . . to the public.” Under CADA’s admin­istrative review system, the Colorado Civil Rights Division first found probable cause for a violation and referred the case to the Commis­sion. The Commission then referred the case for a formal hearing be­fore a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who ruled in the cou­ple’s favor. In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion. Both the Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.

Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. Pp. 9–18.

(a) 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. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional

[2]

services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages per­formed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declin­ing to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.

(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commis­sion’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs moti­vating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Hol­ocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impar­tiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay mes­sages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the re­quested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell oth­er products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of

[3]

Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not an­swer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the re­ligious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16.

(c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free ex­ercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious be­liefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520. Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neu­trality include “the historical background of the decision under chal­lenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, in­cluding contemporaneous statements made by members of the deci­sion making body.” Id., at 540. In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even sug­gesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that re­quirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. Pp. 16–18.

370 P. 3d 272, reversed.

nolu chan  posted on  2018-06-04   13:09:21 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


Replies to Comment # 10.

#11. To: nolu chan (#10)

I found two brief Tweet summaries, the second one from the baker.

Basically, the Supreme Court found that some Colorado commissioners are jerks.

— Robert VerBruggen (@RAVerBruggen) June 4, 2018

I'm grateful for the SCOTUS decision, but remain v. apprehensive. If Colo commission had said not "Bake the cake, bigot," but merely, "Bake the cake," would the ruling have been different? https://t.co/ePL87zMXAj

— Rod Dreher (@roddreher) June 4, 2018

Not the broader ruling the Right was hoping for.

Tooconservative  posted on  2018-06-04 13:24:25 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


#13. To: nolu chan (#10)

disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Hol­ocaust.

The race card

whaT ... the HuTus --- did To The TuTsis

the souThern PoverTy law agenda

100 of Thousands people bludgeoned - hacked To death

MarxisT - African regime CHANGE

love
boris

BorisY  posted on  2018-06-04 16:11:09 ET  Reply   Untrace   Trace   Private Reply  


End Trace Mode for Comment # 10.

TopPage UpFull ThreadPage DownBottom/Latest

[Home]  [Headlines]  [Latest Articles]  [Latest Comments]  [Post]  [Mail]  [Sign-in]  [Setup]  [Help]  [Register] 

Please report web page problems, questions and comments to webmaster@libertysflame.com