What the Supreme Court's gay weddg webse lg means for LGBTQ rights

Contents:

• GAY WEDDG KE SE BEFORE SUPREME COURT, WH RAMIFITNS FOR DISCRIMATN
• US SUPREME COURT BACKS COLORADO BAKER'S GAY WEDDG KE SNUB
• GAY WEDDG KE NTROVERSY HEADS TO SUPREME COURT
• SUPREME COURT WON'T OVERTURN LG AGAST BS THAT REFED SERVICE FOR GAY WEDDGS
• WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT A SEEMGLY FAKE DOCUMENT A GAY RIGHTS CASE
• WHAT THE SUPREME COURT'S GAY WEDDG WEBSE LG MEANS FOR LGBTQ RIGHTS
• SUPREME COURT CIS COLORADO GAY WEDDG KE SE: A TIMELE OF EVENTS
• SUPREME URT SIS WH BAKER WHO REFED TO MAKE GAY WEDDG KE

GAY WEDDG KE SE BEFORE SUPREME COURT, WH RAMIFITNS FOR DISCRIMATN

“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. “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. 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.

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

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".

(Alliance Defendg Freedom)The urt on Tuday will exame whether applyg Colorado's public acmodatns law to pel the lol baker to create mercial "exprsn" vlat his nstutnally protected Christian beliefs about wadg aga to the culture wars, the jtic will have to nont recent cisns on both gay rights and relig liberty: a 2015 landmark opn legalizg same-sex marriage natnwi and a separate 2014 cisn affirmg the right of some pani to act on their owner's fah by refg to provi ntraceptn to s workers. ' — Jack Phillips Chief Jtice John Roberts predicted the current legal dilemma his gay marriage dissent: "Hard qutns arise when people of fah exercise relign ways that may be seen to nflict wh the new right to same-sex marriage.

GAY WEDDG KE NTROVERSY HEADS TO SUPREME COURT

"The soft-spoken Phillips adds that like other artists, he has turned away ke requts for a variety of reasons: baked goods wh profany or obscene imag, racial stereotyp, even those that he says would disparage homosexuals.

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. “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.

SUPREME COURT WON'T OVERTURN LG AGAST BS THAT REFED SERVICE FOR GAY WEDDGS

“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. Kavangh and Amy Coney Barrett, shifted the urt to the right.Lower 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 orientatn.The 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. A baker refed to make a weddg ke for their receptn on relig grounds.Cred...Nick Cote for The New York TimHad there been an actual gay person who was refed a weddg-related service at the center of 303 Creative L.L.C.

Irish-Amerin Gay, Lbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., a se om 1995 which the urt sid wh the anizers of a veterans para that blocked a group of gay, lbian and bisexual people om marchg the event.

WHAT TO KNOW ABOUT A SEEMGLY FAKE DOCUMENT A GAY RIGHTS CASE

Jtice Sotomayor seemed pecially ncerned about the way the urt’s opn would send a disapprovg msage to the public about people who are gay, lbian, bisexual or transgenr, or who were same-sex relatnships.

Addnally, several stat terpret existg laws agast sex discrimatn to apply to bias relatg to sexual orientatn and genr inty, even though they do not have laws explicly forbiddg such discrimatn.In stat that do not offer protectns to gay and transgenr people on those grounds, municipal laws ver many rints.The Human Rights Campaign, an L.G.B.T.Q. ETFriday’s lg was another reassurg cisn for relig nservativ.ImageA celebratory moment outsi the Supreme Court on Friday, after the urt livered the latt a strg of judgments favor of relig nservativ.Cred...Mariam Zuhaib/Associated PrsConservativ who have moral and theologil objectns to gay marriage saw the Supreme Court’s cisn on Friday as reassurance that they would be able to assert their beliefs a public square that they see as creasgly hostile to them.In a 6-to-3 vote, spl along iologil l, the jtic agreed wh a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right to refe to provi servic for same-sex marriag, spe a state law that forbids discrimatn agast gay people.“If the ernment n pel an dividual to speak a certa way or create certa thgs, that’s not eedom — ’s subjugatn,” said Brent Leatherwood, the head of the Southern Baptist Conventn’s policy arm, a statement after the lg.

He scribed the cisn as havg granted eedom to all Amerins to speak nsistently wh their beliefs, “even when those beliefs are emed culturally unpopular.”Acrdg to pollg om 2021 by the Public Relign Rearch Instute, majori of most major relig groups — cludg Catholics, Jews and Mlims — oppose allowg small-bs owners to refe to serve gay and lbian people on relig grounds.

WHAT THE SUPREME COURT'S GAY WEDDG WEBSE LG MEANS FOR LGBTQ RIGHTS

Several siar s have centered on nservative Christian small bs owners who object to workg on gay weddgs specifilly, cludg a baker Colorado, two vatn signers Arizona and a Kentucky-based photographer.In a news nference shortly after the lg was issued, Krist Waggoner, general unsel for Alliance Defendg Freedom, which reprented Ms.

Smh’s portfol clus webs for church, real tate pani and polil ndidat.While many nservative Christians hailed the cisn on Friday, drew cricism om some progrsive Christians and terfah groups, cludg those that serve gay people of fah.“Broad exemptns to allow relig-based discrimatn hurts people of fah, too,” Francis DeBernardo, executive director of New Ways Mistry, which advot for gay Catholics, said a statement.

ETGay rights anizatns nmn the lg but note s signifint limatns.ImageProtters gathered at the Supreme Court December, as the se volvg a Colorado webse signer was beg argued.Cred...Michael A.

SUPREME COURT CIS COLORADO GAY WEDDG KE SE: A TIMELE OF EVENTS

McCoy for The New York TimGay and transgenr rights anizatns on Friday nmned the Supreme Court lg backg a Colorado webse signer’s bid to refe to provi servic for same-sex marriag, llg the cisn a dangero backslidg on L.G.B.T.Q. ETHere’s how urt battl over servg same-sex upl have played out the past.ImageCred...Nick Cote for The New York TimIn the latt se volvg same-sex marriage rights, relig eedom and discrimatn, the Supreme Court on Friday led favor of a web signer Colorado who said she had a First Amendment right not to provi servic for same-sex marriag spe a state law that bans discrimatn agast gay people.Here’s a brief look at some of the most proment s before Friday’s:A Colorado baker ws urtIn June 2018, the Supreme Court led favor of a Colorado baker who refed to bake a weddg ke for a gay uple.

Kennedy wrote that the missn’s members had acted wh “clear and impermissible hostily” to people wh scerely held relig beliefs.In Bra, a kemaker prevailsBra’s Supreme Court led favor of a bakery October 2018 that had refed to make a ke bearg the slogan “Support Gay Marriage,” sayg the refal was not discrimatory. The urt’s cisn mak easier for bs Bra to cle ctomer requts that are at odds wh their beliefs.The dispute began 2014, when Gareth Lee, a gay rights activist Northern Ireland, sought to buy a ke for a party om Ashers Bakg Company Belfast that showed two “Same Street” characters, Bert and Ernie; a logo for his group, QueerSpace; and the slogan supportg gay marriage.

It was overturned by Bra’s Supreme Court.A florist Washgton State says her rights were vlatedIn 2013, Barronelle Stutzman, the owner of a flower shop the small cy of Richland, southeastern Washgton, refed to create floral arrangements for a gay uple’s weddg.The two grooms, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, had prevly bought flowers at her store, Arlene’s Flowers. Stutzman uld not claim relig belief as a reason to not serve same-sex upl.”Invatn signers sue the cy of PhoenixThe Arizona Supreme Court agreed to hear arguments January after two Christian vatn signers said they would refe to create weddg vatns for same-sex upl if asked.Joanna Da and Breanna Koski, evangelil Christians and the owners of Bsh & Nib Stud, sued the cy of Phoenix 2016, sayg they feared legal retributn if they did not fulfill requts om gay or lbian upl. The cy has an ordance that protects lbian, gay, bisexual and transgenr people om discrimatn.Alliance Defendg Freedom, a natnal nservative legal group based Sttsdale, Ariz., that is reprentg Bsh & Nib, argued that the ordance vlated the two women’s rights to ee speech and relign.

SUPREME URT SIS WH BAKER WHO REFED TO MAKE GAY WEDDG KE

Colorado Civil Rights Commissn.Cred...Nick Cote for The New York TimThe Supreme Court’s cisn on Friday favor of a Colorado web signer has echo of a 2018 se about a baker who had turned away a gay uple seekg a weddg ke.But that cisn, Masterpiece Cakhop v.

Kennedy, who wrote the majory opn the 7-to-2 cisn 2018, seemed unable to choose between two of his re mments: He was the thor of every major Supreme Court cisn protectg gay rights unr the Constutn and also the urt’s most arnt fenr of ee speech.Instead of pickg between those valu, Jtice Kennedy chose an ofamp that not everyone found nvcg. Neher si the new se ntend that was fected by the sort of anim agast relign prent the earlier one.Jtice Kennedy, who announced his retirement a few weeks after issug his opn Masterpiece Cakhop, regnized that the basic clash of valu remaed.“The oute of s like this other circumstanc mt awa further elaboratn the urts,” he wrote, “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.”In a ncurrg opn, Jtice Clarence Thomas, joed by Jtice Neil M.