Gay cake supreme court
In summary
A California appeals court rules a baker can’t refuse to sell a generic cake to a lesbian couple. It’s part of a series of cases shaping the debate over free speech and anti-discrimination laws.
A Kern County baker violated California law when she refused to trade a cake to a lesbian couple for their wedding, a state appeals court ruled this week in a suit brought by the state’s Civil Rights Department.
If the scenario sounds familiar, that’s because it’s central to a series of cases that have for years been shaping the nation’s legal debate over free speech and anti-discrimination laws.
In , the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado ruling that a baker had violated that state’s nondiscrimination law when he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The ruling was based on the court’s finding that the Colorado civil rights commission handling the case had been prejudiced against the baker’s religious beliefs.
The court in ruled, also in a Colorado case, in favor of a website designer who opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds
Colo. Supreme Court dismisses suit against baker who wouldn’t make cake for transgender woman
Colorado&#;s Supreme Court on Oct. 8 dismissed on procedural grounds a lawsuit against a Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a transgender woman. Justices declined to weigh in on the free-speech issues that brought the case national attention.
Baker Jack Phillips was sued by attorney Autumn Scardina in after his Denver-area bakery refused to make a pink cake with blue frosting to celebrate her gender transition.
Justices said in the majority belief that Scardina had not exhausted her options to seek redress through another court before filing her lawsuit.
&#;We express no view on the merits of these claims,&#; Justice Melissa Hart wrote for the majority.
Phillips&#; attorney, Jake Warner with the Arizona-based rigid Alliance for Defending Freedom, had argued before the state lofty court that the baker&#;s actions were protected free speech and that whatever Scardina said she was going to do with the cake mattered for his rights.
Warner said Tuesday that his client had
US Supreme Court backs Colorado baker's gay wedding cake snub
The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a baker in Colorado who refused to build a wedding cake for a gay couple.
The Colorado state court had found that baker Jack Phillips' decision to turn away David Mullins and Charlie Craig in was unlawful discrimination.
But the Supreme Court ruled on Monday in a vote that that decision had violated Mr Phillips' rights.
The conservative Christian cited his religious beliefs in refusing service.
Gay rights groups feared a ruling against the couple could set a precedent for treating gay marriages differently from heterosexual unions.
But the Supreme Court's verdict instead focuses specifically on Mr Phillips' case.
The decision does not state that florists, photographers, or other services can now refuse to work with gay couples.
The ruling comes three years after the Supreme Court made same-sex marriage the law of the land in its landmark Obergefell v Hodges decision.
What did Monday's r Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ()
Excerpt: Majority Notion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
In a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to create inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not produce a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages the Articulate of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. . . .
The case presents hard questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to safeguard the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ()
Excerpt: Majority Notion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
In a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to create inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not produce a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages the Articulate of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. . . .
The case presents hard questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to safeguard the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for