U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who rebuffed gay uple | Rters

Contents:

• 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
• 8 ARGUMENTS AGAST THE ANTI-GAY BAKER YOU MAY NOT HAVE NSIRED
• COMMENTARY: WHY SUPREME COURT MT TELL ANTI-GAY BAKER HIS K AREN’T ART
• STEPHEN COLBERT CHATS WH 'ANTI-GAY BAKER' WHO WON'T USE L, G, B, T OR Q ON CAK
• BAKER FAC COMPLAT FOR REFG TO MAKE ANTI-GAY CAK
• IN NARROW OPN, SUPREME COURT RUL FOR BAKER IN GAY-RIGHTS CASE
• COLORADO'S AZUR BAKERY DID NOT DISCRIMATE BY REFG TO BAKE ANTI-GAY CAK, COURT RUL
• THIS COLORADO BAKER REFED TO PUT AN ANTI-GAY MSAGE ON K. NOW SHE IS FACG A CIVIL RIGHTS PLAT.
• U.S. SUPREME COURT BACKS CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REBUFFED GAY UPLE
• COLORADO SAYS BAKER DIDN'T DISCRIMATE REFG TO MAKE ANTI-GAY CAKE
• OREGON'S SWEET CAK BY MELISSA PREPS DSERTS FOR 'EX-GAY' GROUP RTORED HOPE (PHOTO)

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

” Did Phillips refe to bake a generic ke for gay people, or did he refe to bake a special gay-weddg ke? ”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.

It jt said that the anti-gay ke was offensive and the gay-weddg ke wasn’t.

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.

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

Jtice Thomas (joed by Jtice Gorsuch) wrote to say Phillips would also have won on ee speech 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. 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.

8 ARGUMENTS AGAST THE ANTI-GAY BAKER YOU MAY NOT HAVE NSIRED

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?

Jtice Anthony Kennedy wrote that while Colorado law "n protect gay persons acquirg products and servic...

COMMENTARY: WHY SUPREME COURT MT TELL ANTI-GAY BAKER HIS K AREN’T ART

A siar 'gay ke' row is ongog Northern Ireland. 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".

Essentially, the “relig eedom” argument favor of Phillip’s anti-gay discrimatn is way off balance.

STEPHEN COLBERT CHATS WH 'ANTI-GAY BAKER' WHO WON'T USE L, G, B, T OR Q ON CAK

That’s the se that Servic and Advocy for Gay, Lbian, Bisexual, and Transgenr Elrs (SAGE) and the Amerin Society on Agg make their brief. “If the Court creat an exemptn om the public acmodatns law to perm the Company to refe service to a gay uple on First Amendment grounds, the implitns of such a precent for unrmg the protectns of the laws for women are far-reachg.

The Civil Rights Act did not immediately remedy all racist beliefs, jt as Obergefell, the Supreme Court’s marriage equaly cisn, did not immediately remedy all anti-gay beliefs.

BAKER FAC COMPLAT FOR REFG TO MAKE ANTI-GAY CAK

Jack Phillips, the currently most famo baker the Uned Stat after his refal to sell a weddg ke to a gay uple end up a huge lawsu now before the US Supreme Court, is ready and willg to make you se wh one of his latt creatns – jt as long as you’re not a homosexual. And while Phillips apparently stopped makg weddg k after a Colorado Civil Rights Commissn led that his 2012 refal to acmodate the gay uple amounted to discrimatn, he still mak plenty of other yummy k – jt not the marryg kd.

” om San Francis wr: “THIS ESTABLISHMENT IS ANTI-GAY. The Tmp admistratn’s brief the Supreme Court’s anti-gay baker se is cynil, dishont, and embarrassg. The DOJ urged the Supreme Court to le that laws barrg bs om refg to serve gay upl may vlate the First Amendment’s ee speech guarantee.

IN NARROW OPN, SUPREME COURT RUL FOR BAKER IN GAY-RIGHTS CASE

Craig and Mulls filed a plat wh the Colorado Civil Rights Commissn, which orred Phillips to stop discrimatg agast gay people. But recent years, anti-gay activist groups like the Alliance Defendg Freedom have asserted that nondiscrimatn laws ge on ee speech when they are ed to protect same-sex upl. ADF is reprentg Phillips, which is no surprise: It oppos LGBTQ nondiscrimatn laws and has also argued for the crimalizatn of homosexualy and the mandatory sterilizatn of transgenr people.

First, says that bakg a ke exchange for money is “exprsive nduct” and “associatn” that rais First Amendment ncerns, and a state’s tert protectg gay rints is not strong enough to jtify “pellg” this “creative procs” for same-sex upl.

COLORADO'S AZUR BAKERY DID NOT DISCRIMATE BY REFG TO BAKE ANTI-GAY CAK, COURT RUL

Homophobia, the brief asserts, is not as bad as racism. Even worse, the brief do not expla why homophobia serv special rpect unr the law.

The Supreme Court has said that homosexualy is immutable, like race. The First Amendment do not grant greater rights to homophobic bakers than racist or sexist on.

THIS COLORADO BAKER REFED TO PUT AN ANTI-GAY MSAGE ON K. NOW SHE IS FACG A CIVIL RIGHTS PLAT.

Shopkeepers do not have a special right to turn away gays om their stor. This brief will light the urt’s reactnari who favor relig supremacy and disda gay rights. The se, which a nservative Christian bakery owner seeks the right to discrimate agast gay upl, is the latt attempt by nservativ to rve out special exemptn for bs owners to civil rights laws.

U.S. SUPREME COURT BACKS CHRISTIAN BAKER WHO REBUFFED GAY UPLE

Stephen Colbert sound off on news that the Supreme Court will hear the se of a Colorado baker who refed to prepare a weddg ke for a gay uple perhaps the most Stephen Colbert way possible.

But a Texas mistry on Thursday disavowed the plat one of s -founrs filed agast the woman who refed to sell him k wh anti-gay msag.

COLORADO SAYS BAKER DIDN'T DISCRIMATE REFG TO MAKE ANTI-GAY CAKE

Marjorie Silva, owner of Azur Bakery Denver, said she told the man, Bill Jack of the Denver suburb of Castle Rock, that she wouldn't fill his orr last March for two k the shape of the Bible, to be rated wh phras like "God hat gays" and an image of two men holdg hands wh an "X" on told NBC statn KUSA of Denver that she later received a discrimatn plat om the Civil Rights Divisn of the Colorado Department of Regulatory Agenci. "Marjorie Silva her Azur Bakery Moreno / APIN-DEPTHRelig Liberty or Anti-Gay Discrimatn? Debate Heats UpGay Church Employee Fired Over Engagement (NBC Chigo)SOCIAL.

OREGON'S SWEET CAK BY MELISSA PREPS DSERTS FOR 'EX-GAY' GROUP RTORED HOPE (PHOTO)

The se began when a same-sex uple Colorado — Charlie Craig and Dave Mulls — filed a plat wh the state civil-rights missn after baker Jack Phillips told them that he did not sign ctom k for gay upl.

Kennedy said is "unexceptnal" that Colorado law "n protect gay persons acquirg products and servic on the same terms and ndns that are offered to other members of the public, " but at the same time, "the law mt be applied a manner that is ntral toward relign. Moreover, the state law at the time afford storekeepers some latu to cle creatg specific msag they nsired offensive, and the Colorado missn had prevly allowed three different bakers to refe to put an anti-gay msage on a ke.

" Throughout the opn, Kennedy seemed to be balancg the ledger, tryg not to disturb public acmodatn laws like the one Colorado and reeratg that gay people may "not be treated as outsts. " While a member of the clergy clearly nnot be forced to nduct a weddg ceremony for a same-sex uple, vlatn of his relig views, Kennedy said, Colorado "n protect gay persons, jt as n protect other class of dividuals.