Gay wedding cake supreme court
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
In 2012 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 State 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 protect 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 work out fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is tough, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might hold thought of its creation as an
In summary
A California appeals court rules a baker can’t decline to sell a generic cake to a lesbian couple. It’s part of a series of cases shaping the debate over free speech and anti-discrimination laws.
A Kern County baker violated California law when she refused to market a cake to a lesbian couple for their wedding, a state appeals court ruled this week in a suit brought by the state’s Civil Rights Department.
If the scenario sounds familiar, that’s because it’s central to a series of cases that have for years been shaping the nation’s legal debate over free speech and anti-discrimination laws.
In 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado ruling that a baker had violated that state’s nondiscrimination law when he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The judgment was based on the court’s result that the Colorado civil rights commission handling the case had been prejudiced against the baker’s religious beliefs.
The court in 2023 dictated, also in a Colorado case, in favor of a website designer who opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds and who was afraid the alike state statutes could in theory drive her to plan a wedding w
Baker’s refusal to bake lgbtq+ wedding cake
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___; 138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018)
Summary
In a 7-2 ruling, the US Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) that a baker could not disallow to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. Jack Phillips, owner of Colorado bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because same-sex marriage conflicted with his religious views. The couple filed a complaint with the Commission on the basis that the refusal violated express anti-discrimination laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating against customers based on sexual orientation. The Commission ordered the baker to bake the cake. The baker appealed to the Court of Appeals which agreed with the Commission. The baker appealed to the US Supreme Court (Court), which overturned the Commission’s decision on the basis that the Commission had not acted with the required neutrality towards religion.
The Court did not take the opportunity to decide on broader issues, such as the overlap between the rights to free speech
On June 4, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Colorado civil rights agency held that the cakeshop owner and baker, Jack Phillips, had violated the State’s law against sexual orientation discrimination when he refused to provide a queer male couple with a wedding cake to celebrate their union for religious reasons. Phillips argued that the State had violated his constitutional rights under the First Amendment – which protects the free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech – because his wedding cakes are expressions of his beliefs.
What the Supreme Court said. By a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Commission had violated Phillips’ right to the free drill of his religion because it had failed to treat his case impartially. Instead, the Commission had been influenced by bias against his religious beliefs – which the Constitution prohibits. The Court’s majority concluded that the State proceeding had been tainted by anti-religious bias for two reasons: (1) two of the Commissioners had publicly expressed what the Court viewed as anti-religious opinions, and the Commiss