A Colorado baker who had won a narrow U.S. 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 transn.
Contents:
- IN NARROW LG, SUPREME COURT GIV VICTORY TO BAKER WHO REFED TO MAKE KE FOR GAY WEDDG
- US SUPREME COURT BACKS COLORADO BAKER'S GAY WEDDG KE SNUB
- GAY COUPLE AT CENTER OF WEDDG CAKE DECISN SLAMS SUPREME COURT
- SUPREME COURT TOSS LG AGAST BAKERS WHO REFED KE FOR GAY UPLE
- GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
- 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
- IN NARROW OPN, SUPREME COURT RUL FOR BAKER IN GAY-RIGHTS CASE
- U.S. SUPREME COURT BACKS CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REBUFFED GAY UPLE
- SUPREME COURT L FAVOR OF BAKER WHO WOULD NOT MAKE WEDDG KE FOR GAY UPLE
IN NARROW LG, SUPREME COURT GIV VICTORY TO BAKER WHO REFED TO MAKE KE FOR GAY WEDDG
* gay baker supreme court *
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.
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?
US SUPREME COURT BACKS COLORADO BAKER'S GAY WEDDG KE SNUB
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". 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.
GAY COUPLE AT CENTER OF WEDDG CAKE DECISN SLAMS SUPREME COURT
But the hight urt the land is not cidg the big issue the se – whether a bs n refe to serve gay and lbian Supreme Court jtic' limed lg Monday turns on what the urt scribed as anti-relig bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commissn when led agast baker Jack Phillips. In a searg dissent, Jtice Sonia Sotomayor wrote that the cisn opened up a sea of disturbg possibili, givg the example of a nservative photographer who might refe to photograph an terracial uple or a funeral home that would refe to handle the body of a gay man.
WASHINGTON SUPREME COURT RULES AGAINST FLORIST WHO REFUSED SERVICE FOR GAY COUPLE'S WEDDINGOn Monday, the Supreme Court sent the Kle se back down to a lower urt "for further nsiratn light of" their Colorado central disput the se -- which ps LGBT rights agast relig eedom nsiratns -- have yet to be addrsed by the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT TOSS LG AGAST BAKERS WHO REFED KE FOR GAY UPLE
Kle then said the bakery do not make k for gay weddgs, urt documents 's mother, who was wh her, said Kle quoted the Bible when explag his Kles had to pay a $135, 000 judgment to the uple for discrimatg agast them vlatn of a state public acmodatns statute. 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. 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.
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.
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 stat that do not offer protectns to gay and transgenr people on those grounds, municipal laws ver many Human Rights Campaign, an L. McCoy for The New York TimThe urt’s cisn favor of a Colorado web signer, Lorie Smh, had an unual feature: It was based on njecture and Smh, who objects to providg weddg-related servic for same-sex marriag, never turned down a gay uple. ETFriday’s lg was another reassurg cisn for relig celebratory moment outsi the Supreme Court on Friday, after the urt livered the latt a strg of judgments favor of relig 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 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.
GAY RIGHTS VS. FREE SPEECHSUPREME COURT BACKS WEB DIGNER OPPOSED TO SAME-SEX MARRIAGE
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 a news nference shortly after the lg was issued, Krist Waggoner, general unsel for Alliance Defendg Freedom, which reprented Ms.
” She said her nsiratn acceptg work as a webse signer was the “msage” of the se, not the inty of the Smh’s portfol clus webs for church, real tate pani and polil 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.
ETHere’s how urt battl over servg same-sex upl have played out the 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 ’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.
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
Kennedy wrote that the missn’s members had acted wh “clear and impermissible hostily” to people wh scerely held relig 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 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. 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 two grooms, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, had prevly bought flowers at her store, Arlene’s Flowers.
”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 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. 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.
IN NARROW OPN, SUPREME COURT RUL FOR BAKER IN GAY-RIGHTS CASE
“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.
After the 2020 electn, Colorado bee a center of electn nspiraci, a e embraced by some of s state is “a nice enpsulatn on what lims have been placed on the Christian right and what power and fluence they n still yield, ” William Schultz, a historian at the Universy of Chigo Divy School who is workg on a book about Christian culture Colorado Sprgs, said last 1992, voters the state passed what was nsired at the time to be an unual ballot iative prohibg Colorado om regnizg gay, lbian and bisexual people as a protected class.
U.S. SUPREME COURT BACKS CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REBUFFED GAY UPLE
Another poll by Pew found that almost half of whe evangelils born after 1964 favored same-sex marriage 2017, pared to about a quarter of olr whe fah groups that have tradnally opposed gay rights now support some acmodatns for same-sex marriage. PetersCoverg the media's tersectn wh polics, culture and lawThree years ago, Jtice Neil Gorsuch, who wrote today's opn favor of the webse signer who oppos same-sex marriage, was the thor of a very different opn om the urt, lg that a landmark civil rights law protects gay and transgenr employe om workplace discrimatn.
SUPREME COURT L FAVOR OF BAKER WHO WOULD NOT MAKE WEDDG KE FOR GAY UPLE
The New Republic published an article reportg that the Colorado webse signer who oppos same-sex marriage, and whose challenge to Colorado’s antidiscrimatn law took this se to the Supreme Court, may not have received an actual requt om a gay uple to create a weddg 30, 2023, 10:17 a. ETHere’s what to know about the ee speech a 6-to-3 vote, spl along iologil l, the Supreme Court sid on Friday 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.
”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, who celebrated the lg on Friday as a victory for relig dissent, Jtice Sonia Sotomayor lled the lg “profoundly wrong, ” argug that the Colorado anti-discrimatn law “targets nduct, not speech, for regulatn, and the act of discrimatn has never nstuted protected exprsn unr the First Amendment.
At the same time, the lg limed the abily of the ernments to enforce anti-discrimatn 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.