California LGBT Weddg Cak and profsnal bakeri that are LGBT owned or iendly! Lbian and Gay Weddg Cak and sweets! " name="scriptn
Contents:
- US SUPREME COURT BACKS COLORADO BAKER'S GAY WEDDG KE SNUB
- GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
- TEXAS LBIAN AND GAY WEDDG FRIENDLY BAKRI
US SUPREME COURT BACKS COLORADO BAKER'S GAY WEDDG KE SNUB
* lgbt wedding cake *
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. 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".
“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, ” he wrote Monday. “At the same time the relig and philosophil objectns to gay marriage are protected views and some stanc protected forms of exprsn, ” Kennedy wrote, addg that the “ntral nsiratn to which Phillips was entled was promised here.
GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
Plan Your LGBTQ Gay Weddg, Fd Ias & Inspiratn, Weddg Vendors, Venu, Chapels, Photographer, and Read Real LGBTQ Weddg Stori. * lgbt wedding cake *
“The oute of s like this other circumstanc mt awa further elaboratn the urts, all the ntext of regnizg that 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, ” the opn stat. Supreme Court hears arguments the Masterpiece Cakhop se, which a nservative Christian baker Colorado refed to bake a weddg ke for a gay uple bee he oppos same-sex marriage and believ his actns are protected by the First Amendment. ImageLorie Smh said her Christian fah requir her to turn away ctomers seekg servic to celebrate same-sex 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.
TEXAS LBIAN AND GAY WEDDG FRIENDLY BAKRI
’”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 cisn also appeared to suggt that the rights of L. The liberal jtic viewed as somethg else entirely — a dispute that threatened societal protectns for gay rights and rolled back some recent 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.
”A Colorado law forbids discrimatn agast gay people by bs open to the public as well as statements announcg such discrimatn. Kavangh and Amy Coney Barrett, shifted the urt to the urts have generally sid wh gay and lbian upl who were refed service by bakeri, florists and others, lg that potential ctomers are entled to equal treatment, at least parts of the untry wh laws forbiddg discrimatn based on sexual owners of bs challengg those laws have argued that the ernment should not force them to choose between the requirements of their fahs and their livelihoods.