Baker who refed to make ke for gay weddg: 'I don't discrimate'

Contents:

• US SUPREME COURT BACKS COLORADO BAKER'S GAY WEDDG KE SNUB
• BAKER WHO REFED TO MAKE KE FOR GAY WEDDG: 'I DON'T DISCRIMATE'
• ‘GAY KE’ ROW: MAN LOS SEVEN-YEAR BATTLE AGAST BELFAST BAKERY
• IN NARROW LG, SUPREME COURT GIV VICTORY TO BAKER WHO REFED TO MAKE KE FOR GAY WEDDG
• SUPREME COURT SIS WH ANTI-GAY BAKER. IT’S NOT A LOSS FOR LGBT EQUALY.DON'T PANICA CHRISTIAN BAKER N REFE SERVICE TO A SAME-SEX UPLE FOR NOW, BUT ONLY BEE THE STATE LLED HIS BELIEFS ‘OFFENSIVE.’ EVEN LIBERAL JTIC AGREED.JAY MICHAELSONUPDATED DEC. 27, 2018 5:40PM EST / PUBLISHED JUN. 04, 2018 12:04PM EDT OPNPHOTO ILLTRATN BY THE DAILY BEASTEVERYONE IS GOG TO SAY THE SUPREME COURT’S LG MASTERPIECE CAKHOP IS A W FOR THE CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REFED TO BAKE A KE FOR A SAME-SEX UPLE. THEY’RE WRONG. THIS SE WAS FORFEED BY THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSN.IN THE COURT’S 7-2 OPN, WRTEN BY JTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY, THE COURT CID THE SE ON NARROW, AND UNUAL, GROUNDS: THAT THE MISSN WAS ACTIVELY HOSTILE TO THE RELIG BELIEFS OF THE BAKER, JACK PHILLIPS. AS A RULT, THE COURT’S OPN DIDN’T REACH THE EPER ISSU UNRNEATH, AND WE KNOW NO MORE ABOUT THEM THAN WE DID BEFORE THE SE ME DOWN.THAT’S WHY THE VOTE WAS 7-2: BEE, THE END, THIS WAS AN EASY SE. THE ISSU UNRNEATH ARE HARD: THEY ARE ABOUT THE NFLICT BETWEEN THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND RIGHTS TO BE EE OM DISCRIMATN. IS A KE “SPEECH?” DID PHILLIPS REFE TO BAKE A GENERIC KE FOR GAY PEOPLE, OR DID HE REFE TO BAKE A SPECIAL GAY-WEDDG KE? WHEN DO A SCERE RELIG BELIEF JTIFY DISCRIMATN, AND WHEN DON’T ?THE ANSWER IS, WE STILL DON’T KNOW. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THE COLORADO MISSN ROYALLY MSED UP, LLG PHILLIPS’ BELIEFS “IRRATNAL” AND “OFFENSIVE.” AGREE OR DISAGREE WH THAT CHARACTERIZATN, PASSG SUCH JUDGMENT IS NOT THE ERNMENT’S BS. THAT’S HOW JTIC KAGAN AND GORSUCH WERE ABLE TO AGREE ON THE OUTE OF THIS SE. THE FIRST AMENDMENT REQUIR ERNMENT OFFICIALS TO BE NTRAL TOWARD RELIGN, AND THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS MISSN WAS NOT.“THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSN’S TREATMENT OF [PHILLIPS’] SE,” JTICE KENNEDY WROTE, “HAS SOME ELEMENTS OF A CLEAR AND IMPERMISSIBLE HOSTILY TOWARD THE SCERE RELIG BELIEFS THAT MOTIVATED HIS OBJECTN.”IT DIDN’T HELP THAT THE MISSN ALSO FAILED TO EXPLA WHY PHILLIPS WAS BEG TREATED DIFFERENTLY OM A BAKER WHO REFED TO BAKE A KE WH AN ANTI-GAY MSAGE. JTICE KAGAN, HER NCURRG OPN, ACTUALLY SET FORTH HOW THE MISSN ULD HAVE DISTGUISHED THE S: PHILLIPS REFED TO SERVE GAY PEOPLE, WHEREAS THE OTHER BAKER REFED TO BAKE THAT KE FOR ANYONE. BUT THE MISSN DIDN’T DO THAT. IT JT SAID THAT THE ANTI-GAY KE WAS OFFENSIVE AND THE GAY-WEDDG KE WASN’T. “THE FIRST AMENDMENT REQUIR ERNMENT OFFICIALS TO BE NTRAL TOWARD RELIGN, AND THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS MISSN WAS NOT.” EVEN THE COURT’S OPN HTED AT THIS POT: “WHILE THE ISSU HERE ARE DIFFICULT TO ROLVE, MT BE NCLUD THAT THE STATE’S TERT ULD HAVE BEEN WEIGHED AGAST PHILLIPS’ SCERE RELIG OBJECTNS A WAY NSISTENT WH THE REQUISE RELIG NTRALY THAT MT BE STRICTLY OBSERVED.” IN OTHER WORDS, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A HARD SE HAD THE MISSN DONE S JOB RIGHT. BUT DIDN’T, AND SO THIS BEME AN EASY ONE.IF THE COLORADO MISSN WAS THE BIG LOSER MASTERPIECE CAKHOP, A WAY THE BIG WNER IS JTICE KENNEDY.OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, MENTATORS LIKE ME HAVE WONRED HOW KENNEDY ULD (SORRY ABOUT THIS) “HAVE HIS KE AND EAT TOO” THIS SE. ON THE ONE HAND, KENNEDY IS THE THOR OF EVERY MAJOR LGBT OPN RECENT SUPREME COURT HISTORY, AND HE HAS NEVER LED AGAST LGBT PEOPLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, KENNEDY IS A VNTED EE-SPEECH LIBERTARIAN, AND WAS HARD TO SEE HOW HE, AS THE LIKELY SWG VOTE, ULD EVER PEL A BAKER TO WRE WORDS ON A KE THAT HE DIDN’T WANT TO WRE.WELL, HE FOUND A WAY. GAY AMERINS JT RECEIVED ANOTHER HELPG OF POWERFUL, EVEN MOVG, JUDICIAL RHETORIC. “OUR SOCIETY HAS E TO THE REGNN THAT GAY PERSONS AND GAY UPL NNOT BE TREATED AS SOCIAL OUTSTS OR AS FERR DIGNY AND WORTH,” JTICE KENNEDY WROTE. “FOR THAT REASON THE LAWS AND THE CONSTUTN N, AND SOME STANC MT, PROTECT THEM THE EXERCISE OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.”AND YET, ON THE OTHER HAND, “THE OFFICIAL EXPRSNS OF HOSTILY TO RELIGN SOME OF THE MISSNERS’ MENTS… WERE NSISTENT WH WHAT THE FREE EXERCISE CLSE REQUIR.”WH JTICE KENNEDY OCCUPYG THE CENTER, THAT LEFT FOUR OTHER OPNS TO ARGUE THE SE WE ALL EXPECTED. JTICE KAGAN (JOED BY JTICE BREYER) WROTE SEPARATELY TO EMPHASIZE THAT HAD THE SE BEEN PROPERLY PRENTED, PHILLIPS WOULD HAVE LOST. JTICE GORSUCH (JOED BY JTICE ALO) WROTE TO SAY THAT PHILLIPS PROBABLY WOULD HAVE WON. JTICE THOMAS (JOED BY JTICE GORSUCH) WROTE TO SAY PHILLIPS WOULD ALSO HAVE WON ON EE SPEECH GROUNDS.AND JTICE GSBURG (JOED BY JTICE SOTOMAYOR) DISSENTED, ARGUG THAT THE HOSTILE MENTS WERE ONLY BY CERTA MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MISSN, THAT PHILLIPS’S REFAL TO SELL A KE TO A GAY UPLE IS WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, AND THAT NNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND. IF YOU TALLY UP THOSE NCURRG AND DISSENTG OPNS, YOU’VE GOT THREE FOR THE BAKER AND FOUR AGAST, LEAVG ONLY CHIEF JTICE ROBERTS AND JTICE KENNEDY UNACUNTED FOR. WHICH IS WHAT MOST MENTATORS KNEW GOG : THAT THIS WAS GOG TO E DOWN TO THE TWO OF THEM. SO, WHERE DO WE GO OM HERE?ON A RHETORIL LEVEL, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS GOG TO CHEER THIS AS A HUGE VICTORY FOR RELIG EEDOM. ALREADY, THEY HAVE FILED NUMERO FOLLOW-UP S, HOPG TO EXTEND MASTERPIECE CAKHOP TO FLORISTS, PHOTOGRAPHERS, FOR-PROF WEDDG HALLS, EVEN LAWYERS AND DOCTORS. JT BEE OF HOW WAS CID, THE SE IS A W FOR THE RIGHT S ONGOG “CULTURE WAR.” AND JACK PHILLIPS N REFE TO SELL K TO SAME-SEX UPL.ON AN ACTUAL LEGAL LEVEL, THOUGH, THIS SE SAYS ALMOST NOTHG. BEE OF THE MISSN’S OPEN HOSTILY TO PHILLIPS’S RELIG BELIEFS, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN A MORE NTRAL SE. AS WE’VE JT SEEN, THE CURRENT VOTE ON THAT QUTN IS 4 TO 3, WH THE TWO SWG VOT ABSTAG.INED, EVEN PHILLIPS HIMSELF ULD WELL BE RE-SANCTNED BY THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS MISSN, G THE RATNALE THAT JTICE KAGAN HAS HELPFULLY LAID OUT HER OPN. THERE IS NOTHG THE COURT’S JUDGMENT PROHIBG THE MISSN OM DOG SO, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY FD MORE POLIC TO LET GO. ESSENTIALLY, ALL THIS SE SAYS IS “WHEN ENFORCG CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, THE ERNMENT MT BE NTRAL TOWARD RELIG CLAIMS.” AND WE KNEW THAT ALREADY. THIS SE SAYS NOTHG. JAY MICHAELSON

US SUPREME COURT BACKS COLORADO BAKER'S GAY WEDDG KE SNUB

Image source, RtersImage ptn, Jack Phillips has temporarily stopped makg weddg kThe US Supreme Court has led favour of a baker Colorado who refed to make a weddg ke for a gay Colorado state urt had found that baker Jack Phillips' cisn to turn away David Mulls and Charlie Craig 2012 was unlawful the Supreme Court led on Monday a 7-2 vote that that cisn had vlated Mr Phillips' rights.

BAKER WHO REFED TO MAKE KE FOR GAY WEDDG: 'I DON'T DISCRIMATE'

The nservative Christian ced his relig beliefs refg rights groups feared a lg agast the uple uld set a precent for treatg gay marriag differently om heterosexual the Supreme Court's verdict stead foc specifilly on Mr Phillips' se. The cisn do not state that florists, photographers, or other servic n now refe to work wh gay lg three years after the Supreme Court ma same-sex marriage the law of the land s landmark Obergefell v Hodg source, Getty ImagImage ptn, David Mulls (left) and Charlie Craig wanted a weddg ke to celebrate their planned marriageWhat did Monday's lg say?

The Supreme Court Belfast has yet to release an opn on a lower urt lg that found the owners of a bakery discrimated agast a gay activist for refg to bake a ke wh the slogan "Support Gay Marriage" row began May 2014, when gay activist Gareth Lee placed an orr for a ke wh the gay marriage days later, the Christian-owned Ashers bakery ncelled the orr sayg "would ntradict their relig beliefs". The lg mak clear that “is unexceptnal that Colorado law n protect gay persons, jt as n protect other class of dividuals, acquirg whatever products and servic they choose on the same terms and ndns as are offered to other members of the public. “any cisn favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently nstraed, lt all purveyors of goods and servic who object to gay marriag for moral and relig reasons effect be allowed to put up signs sayg ‘no goods or servic will be sold if they will be ed for gay marriag, ’ somethg that would impose a ser stigma on gay persons.

‘GAY KE’ ROW: MAN LOS SEVEN-YEAR BATTLE AGAST BELFAST BAKERY

"The narrow Supreme Court lg lg Phillips’ se applied to the specific facts of his se only and gave ltle ht as to how the urt might ci future s volvg florists, bakers, photographers and other bs owners who have ced relig and ee-speech objectns when refg to serve gay and lbian ctomers the wake of the Supreme Court's 2015 same-sex marriage cisn. A man has lost a seven-year legal battle agast a Belfast bakery that refed to make him a ke emblazoned wh the msage “support gay marriage” as the European urt of human rights led that his claim was admissible, promptg disappotment om gay rights Thursday the ECHR, by a majory cisn, said would not rensir the cisn of the UK supreme urt, which had overturned a £500 damag award imposed on Ashers bakery, which is n by evangelil refed to produce the ke, featurg the Same Street puppets Bert and Ernie, 2014 for Gareth Lee, who was a supporter of the mpaign to legalise same-sex marriage Northern Ireland.

Same-sex marriage was legalised Northern Ireland last the supreme urt judgment 2018, after s first hearg Northern Ireland, a Belfast unty urt and a urt of appeal had led that the pany discrimated agast Lee, who is gay, on the grounds of sexual ECHR said the claim was admissible bee the applint had not exprsly voked his rights unr the European nventn on human rights at any pot the domtic proceedgs and had relied solely on domtic said: “The supreme urt found on the facts of the se that the applint was not treated differently on acunt of his real or perceived sexual orientatn, but rather that the refal to supply the ke was bee of the fendants’ relig objectn to gay marriage. “What was prcipally at issue, therefore, was not the effect on the applint’s private life or his eedom to hold or exprs his opns or beliefs, but rather whether Ashers bakery was required to produce a ke exprsg the applint’s polil support for gay marriage. Its puty director, Daniel Holr, said the ECHR’S lg on admissibily left dividuals and anisatns mpaigng on gay rights “vulnerable to a mercial bs refg to provi servic like prtg posters, leaflets, settg up webs etc, through claimg an exemptn to non-discrimatn laws on the basis of ‘’s not you ’s your msage’.

”The ECHR said balancg the rights of Lee and those of the bakery owners, Daniel and Amy McArthur, was “a matter of great import and sensivy to both LGBTIQ muni and to fah muni”, particularly Northern Calvert, a spokperson for the Christian Instute, which backed the McArthurs, lled the cisn good news for ee speech, addg: “It protects gay bs owners om beg forced to promote views they don’t share, jt as much as protects Christian bs owners. Supreme Court victory over his refal to make a weddg ke for a gay uple on Thursday lost his appeal of a lg a separate se that he vlated a state anti-discrimatn law by not makg a ke to celebrate a genr Colorado Court of Appeals agreed wh a trial judge that Masterpiece Cakhop and the bakery's owner, Jack Phillips, vlated Autumn Srda's rights by nyg her service bee of her inty as a transgenr woman. Supreme Court 2017 agreed to hear Phillips’ challenge to the Colorado Civil Rights Commissn's ncln he discrimated agast a gay uple for whom he had refed to make a weddg Supreme Court 2018 led Phillips' favor but on narrow grounds that stopped short of creatg a ee speech exemptn to anti-discrimatn laws, fdg the missn was hostile toward Phillips’ Christian 6-3 nservative majory urt December heard arguments a siar se volvg Alliance Defendg Freedom client Lorie Smh, a Christian web signer who argu she has a right to refe to provi servic for same-sex se is Srda v.

IN NARROW LG, SUPREME COURT GIV VICTORY TO BAKER WHO REFED TO MAKE KE FOR GAY WEDDG

It gave no ht as to how the urt might ci future s volvg florists, bakers, photographers and other bs owners who have ced relig and ee-speech objectns when refg to serve gay and lbian ctomers the wake of the Supreme Court's 2015 same-sex marriage the 7-2 cisn, the urt said legal proceedgs Colorado had shown a hostily to the baker's relig views. "The disput mt be rolved wh tolerance, whout undue disrpect to scere relig beliefs, and whout subjectg gay persons to digni when they seek goods and servic an open market, " Kennedy the lg, which me durg Pri Month, gave ltle guidance to the lower urts about how to balance those petg cisn was a victory for Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakhop Denver, who has said that his k are works of art and that requirg him to bake them for same-sex weddgs would force him to exprs a view that vlated his relig beliefs. Craig and Mulls filed a plat after nservative Christian baker Jack Phillips refed to make them a weddg ke for their same-sex Somovilla / Getty ImagAfter the uple filed a formal plat, Colorado urts led that the state's public acmodatn law, which bans discrimatn by pani offerg their servic to the public, did not allow Phillips to refe the gay uple's requt.

In a prev se, the seven-member missn had found Phillips vlatn of the state’s nondiscrimatn laws for refg service to a gay uple who orred a weddg ke 2012 (the Supreme Court overturned the missn’s cisn a narrow 2018 lg, fdg that s members displayed “clear and impermissible hostily” to relign) Colorado Civil Rights Commissn cled NBC News’ requt for ment, sayg that n’t ment on pendg the missn dropped Srda’s se, she filed a separate lawsu last June argug that Masterpiece Cakhop vlated both Colorado’s Anti-Discrimatn Act and the Colorado Consumer Protectn Act.

ImageLorie Smh said her Christian fah requir her to turn away ctomers seekg servic to celebrate same-sex unns.Cred...Rachel Woolf for The New York TimThe Supreme Court sid on Friday wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to sign weddg webs for same-sex upl spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people.Jtice Neil M.

SUPREME COURT SIS WH ANTI-GAY BAKER. IT’S NOT A LOSS FOR LGBT EQUALY.DON'T PANICA CHRISTIAN BAKER N REFE SERVICE TO A SAME-SEX UPLE FOR NOW, BUT ONLY BEE THE STATE LLED HIS BELIEFS ‘OFFENSIVE.’ EVEN LIBERAL JTIC AGREED.JAY MICHAELSONUPDATED DEC. 27, 2018 5:40PM EST / PUBLISHED JUN. 04, 2018 12:04PM EDT OPNPHOTO ILLTRATN BY THE DAILY BEASTEVERYONE IS GOG TO SAY THE SUPREME COURT’S LG MASTERPIECE CAKHOP IS A W FOR THE CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REFED TO BAKE A KE FOR A SAME-SEX UPLE. THEY’RE WRONG. THIS SE WAS FORFEED BY THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSN.IN THE COURT’S 7-2 OPN, WRTEN BY JTICE ANTHONY KENNEDY, THE COURT CID THE SE ON NARROW, AND UNUAL, GROUNDS: THAT THE MISSN WAS ACTIVELY HOSTILE TO THE RELIG BELIEFS OF THE BAKER, JACK PHILLIPS. AS A RULT, THE COURT’S OPN DIDN’T REACH THE EPER ISSU UNRNEATH, AND WE KNOW NO MORE ABOUT THEM THAN WE DID BEFORE THE SE ME DOWN.THAT’S WHY THE VOTE WAS 7-2: BEE, THE END, THIS WAS AN EASY SE. THE ISSU UNRNEATH ARE HARD: THEY ARE ABOUT THE NFLICT BETWEEN THE FIRST AMENDMENT AND RIGHTS TO BE EE OM DISCRIMATN. IS A KE “SPEECH?” DID PHILLIPS REFE TO BAKE A GENERIC KE FOR GAY PEOPLE, OR DID HE REFE TO BAKE A SPECIAL GAY-WEDDG KE? WHEN DO A SCERE RELIG BELIEF JTIFY DISCRIMATN, AND WHEN DON’T ?THE ANSWER IS, WE STILL DON’T KNOW. WHAT WE DO KNOW IS THAT THE COLORADO MISSN ROYALLY MSED UP, LLG PHILLIPS’ BELIEFS “IRRATNAL” AND “OFFENSIVE.” AGREE OR DISAGREE WH THAT CHARACTERIZATN, PASSG SUCH JUDGMENT IS NOT THE ERNMENT’S BS. THAT’S HOW JTIC KAGAN AND GORSUCH WERE ABLE TO AGREE ON THE OUTE OF THIS SE. THE FIRST AMENDMENT REQUIR ERNMENT OFFICIALS TO BE NTRAL TOWARD RELIGN, AND THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS MISSN WAS NOT.“THE CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSN’S TREATMENT OF [PHILLIPS’] SE,” JTICE KENNEDY WROTE, “HAS SOME ELEMENTS OF A CLEAR AND IMPERMISSIBLE HOSTILY TOWARD THE SCERE RELIG BELIEFS THAT MOTIVATED HIS OBJECTN.”IT DIDN’T HELP THAT THE MISSN ALSO FAILED TO EXPLA WHY PHILLIPS WAS BEG TREATED DIFFERENTLY OM A BAKER WHO REFED TO BAKE A KE WH AN ANTI-GAY MSAGE. JTICE KAGAN, HER NCURRG OPN, ACTUALLY SET FORTH HOW THE MISSN ULD HAVE DISTGUISHED THE S: PHILLIPS REFED TO SERVE GAY PEOPLE, WHEREAS THE OTHER BAKER REFED TO BAKE THAT KE FOR ANYONE. BUT THE MISSN DIDN’T DO THAT. IT JT SAID THAT THE ANTI-GAY KE WAS OFFENSIVE AND THE GAY-WEDDG KE WASN’T. “THE FIRST AMENDMENT REQUIR ERNMENT OFFICIALS TO BE NTRAL TOWARD RELIGN, AND THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS MISSN WAS NOT.” EVEN THE COURT’S OPN HTED AT THIS POT: “WHILE THE ISSU HERE ARE DIFFICULT TO ROLVE, MT BE NCLUD THAT THE STATE’S TERT ULD HAVE BEEN WEIGHED AGAST PHILLIPS’ SCERE RELIG OBJECTNS A WAY NSISTENT WH THE REQUISE RELIG NTRALY THAT MT BE STRICTLY OBSERVED.” IN OTHER WORDS, THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN A HARD SE HAD THE MISSN DONE S JOB RIGHT. BUT DIDN’T, AND SO THIS BEME AN EASY ONE.IF THE COLORADO MISSN WAS THE BIG LOSER MASTERPIECE CAKHOP, A WAY THE BIG WNER IS JTICE KENNEDY.OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, MENTATORS LIKE ME HAVE WONRED HOW KENNEDY ULD (SORRY ABOUT THIS) “HAVE HIS KE AND EAT TOO” THIS SE. ON THE ONE HAND, KENNEDY IS THE THOR OF EVERY MAJOR LGBT OPN RECENT SUPREME COURT HISTORY, AND HE HAS NEVER LED AGAST LGBT PEOPLE. ON THE OTHER HAND, KENNEDY IS A VNTED EE-SPEECH LIBERTARIAN, AND WAS HARD TO SEE HOW HE, AS THE LIKELY SWG VOTE, ULD EVER PEL A BAKER TO WRE WORDS ON A KE THAT HE DIDN’T WANT TO WRE.WELL, HE FOUND A WAY. GAY AMERINS JT RECEIVED ANOTHER HELPG OF POWERFUL, EVEN MOVG, JUDICIAL RHETORIC. “OUR SOCIETY HAS E TO THE REGNN THAT GAY PERSONS AND GAY UPL NNOT BE TREATED AS SOCIAL OUTSTS OR AS FERR DIGNY AND WORTH,” JTICE KENNEDY WROTE. “FOR THAT REASON THE LAWS AND THE CONSTUTN N, AND SOME STANC MT, PROTECT THEM THE EXERCISE OF THEIR CIVIL RIGHTS.”AND YET, ON THE OTHER HAND, “THE OFFICIAL EXPRSNS OF HOSTILY TO RELIGN SOME OF THE MISSNERS’ MENTS… WERE NSISTENT WH WHAT THE FREE EXERCISE CLSE REQUIR.”WH JTICE KENNEDY OCCUPYG THE CENTER, THAT LEFT FOUR OTHER OPNS TO ARGUE THE SE WE ALL EXPECTED. JTICE KAGAN (JOED BY JTICE BREYER) WROTE SEPARATELY TO EMPHASIZE THAT HAD THE SE BEEN PROPERLY PRENTED, PHILLIPS WOULD HAVE LOST. JTICE GORSUCH (JOED BY JTICE ALO) WROTE TO SAY THAT PHILLIPS PROBABLY WOULD HAVE WON. JTICE THOMAS (JOED BY JTICE GORSUCH) WROTE TO SAY PHILLIPS WOULD ALSO HAVE WON ON EE SPEECH GROUNDS.AND JTICE GSBURG (JOED BY JTICE SOTOMAYOR) DISSENTED, ARGUG THAT THE HOSTILE MENTS WERE ONLY BY CERTA MEMBERS OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS MISSN, THAT PHILLIPS’S REFAL TO SELL A KE TO A GAY UPLE IS WHAT IS MORE IMPORTANT, AND THAT NNOT BE ALLOWED TO STAND. IF YOU TALLY UP THOSE NCURRG AND DISSENTG OPNS, YOU’VE GOT THREE FOR THE BAKER AND FOUR AGAST, LEAVG ONLY CHIEF JTICE ROBERTS AND JTICE KENNEDY UNACUNTED FOR. WHICH IS WHAT MOST MENTATORS KNEW GOG : THAT THIS WAS GOG TO E DOWN TO THE TWO OF THEM. SO, WHERE DO WE GO OM HERE?ON A RHETORIL LEVEL, THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT IS GOG TO CHEER THIS AS A HUGE VICTORY FOR RELIG EEDOM. ALREADY, THEY HAVE FILED NUMERO FOLLOW-UP S, HOPG TO EXTEND MASTERPIECE CAKHOP TO FLORISTS, PHOTOGRAPHERS, FOR-PROF WEDDG HALLS, EVEN LAWYERS AND DOCTORS. JT BEE OF HOW WAS CID, THE SE IS A W FOR THE RIGHT S ONGOG “CULTURE WAR.” AND JACK PHILLIPS N REFE TO SELL K TO SAME-SEX UPL.ON AN ACTUAL LEGAL LEVEL, THOUGH, THIS SE SAYS ALMOST NOTHG. BEE OF THE MISSN’S OPEN HOSTILY TO PHILLIPS’S RELIG BELIEFS, WE DON’T KNOW WHAT WOULD HAPPEN A MORE NTRAL SE. AS WE’VE JT SEEN, THE CURRENT VOTE ON THAT QUTN IS 4 TO 3, WH THE TWO SWG VOT ABSTAG.INED, EVEN PHILLIPS HIMSELF ULD WELL BE RE-SANCTNED BY THE COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS MISSN, G THE RATNALE THAT JTICE KAGAN HAS HELPFULLY LAID OUT HER OPN. THERE IS NOTHG THE COURT’S JUDGMENT PROHIBG THE MISSN OM DOG SO, ALTHOUGH THEY MAY FD MORE POLIC TO LET GO. ESSENTIALLY, ALL THIS SE SAYS IS “WHEN ENFORCG CIVIL RIGHTS LAWS, THE ERNMENT MT BE NTRAL TOWARD RELIG CLAIMS.” AND WE KNEW THAT ALREADY. THIS SE SAYS NOTHG. JAY MICHAELSON

“Those servic are no ls protected speech today bee they are nveyed wh a ‘voice that ronat farther than uld om any soapbox.’”The se, though amed as a clash between ee speech and gay rights, was the latt a seri of cisns favor of relig people and groups, notably nservative Christians.The cisn also appeared to suggt that the rights of L.G.B.T.Q. The liberal jtic viewed as somethg else entirely — a dispute that threatened societal protectns for gay rights and rolled back some recent progrs.In an impassned dissent, Jtice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the oute signaled a return to a time when people of lor and other mory groups faced open discrimatn. “More broadly, today’s cisn weakens longstandg laws that protect all Amerins agast discrimatn public acmodatns — cludg people of lor, people wh disabili, people of fah, and women.”A Colorado law forbids discrimatn agast gay people by bs open to the public as well as statements announcg such discrimatn.

“Lbian, gay, bisexual, and transgenr (L.G.B.T.) people, no ls than anyone else, serve that digny and eedom.”Jtice Gorsuch rpond directly to the dissent the majory opn, wrg that the two sis looked at the same se and saw totally different issu.“It is difficult to read the dissent and nclu we are lookg at the same se,” he wrote. The dissentg jtic, he wrote, foced on “the stris gay Amerins have ma towards securg equal jtice unr law.”But the nservative jtic did not see the se through that lens, he said, wrg that “none of this answers the qutn we face today: Can a state force someone who provis her own exprsive servic to abandon her nscience and speak s preferred msage stead?”When the Supreme Court agreed to hear the se, 303 Creative L.L.C.