The idea that a gay couple has the "right" to force something as personal as a wedding cake maker to make a cake for them that is, and has always been, against his faith is a phony, made up "right". It's not as if gay couples have been the denied the right to have a wedding cake. This particular cake business was targeted due ONLY to their Christian faith. This gay couple had ANY number of choices for another bakery business to make their cake. Their goal was to make a case against a Christian whose faith objects to such an abomination as same sex marriage. This was not about obtaining a cake. Now I hope this baker sues the daylights out of the State of Colorado and hangs a sign in their window: We do not make cakes for gay weddings.
12
Feel better now?
5
Every new minority movement like LGBT is looking for converts, for acceptance, for love. This is understandable. What is not is for this movement to try and infringe on the rights of others, on the rights of the majority of people who don't believe in gay relations, gay marriage or gay adoption and gay parenting. I have known a lot of gays who always want to proselytize. They think their way is the best way. Just like the Left tries to do. This Christian guy doesn't want to make a gay cake, he doesn't have to. Just like he wouldn't make a porno cake. He also has the right to serve whom he likes.
9
I can't wait to discriminate against evangelicals now because I find their brand of "Christianity" offensive to me and my religious beliefs.
13
why couldn't the couple use another baker? why would they even WANT a cake from a baker that doesn't want any part of the wedding? for any reason? i just hope this nice couple did not use their wedding to go after a conservative baker to make a point
118
Are you serious? What do you think motivated them?
The bake shop owner didn’t refuse to serve them. He didn’t refuse to sell them a wedding cake. But they insisted that he create and bake a wedding cake especially for them, and it was that which he declined to do.
19
Why couldn't Rosa Parks just walk instead of taking a bus that wanted her to give up her seat? Why would she want to ride such a bus in the first place?
80
That is besides the point. There is a principle involved.
Are people allowed to break anti-discrimination laws because they hold sincere religious beliefs?
And if so, what other laws are they allowed to break?
36
Cool, so, no matter what nut jub "sincerely held" religious belief that anyone has regardless of its relevance to any established religion, the courts can't ever rule on its "sincerity" because, like, we can't know what's really going on in someone's head.
But a few remarks by a single person at the Civil Rights Commission and we suddenly know the inner workings of a big decision they made as being "hostile."
We either can know the true motives and inner workings of people when making court rulings or we can't. This special treatment afforded to religion has got to go.
12
A win for Evangelical Supremacists. A loss for the country.
9
No. A loss for bigoted leftist goose-steppers, trying force their agenda down the throats of everyone, regardless of it's lack constitutionality.
6
A simple test of the validity of the Jack Phillips’ argument is if he would have refused to bake a wedding cake if it were for a cat and dog getting married? Probably, and yet he loves cats and dogs. Who doesn’t?
His beef is with weird marriages, not the ones getting married.
9
Thanks for comparing my partner and I to animals. Do you also compare African Americans to monkeys?
2
Finally, yes!! They got it right.
I hope they can make a cake for me with a rainbow flag with a Big Red Circle and Line going through it!
4
Why not have a law requiring those in business who oppose serving certain groups to prominently and unequivocally state this? Such businesses would be obliged to post a large sign (perhaps of a standard format and obtained from a state government department) in front of their premisses stating which groups they will not serve: eg gays, blacks, Muslims, those with certain disabilities, etc. This statement would also, by law, be prominent on the homepage of the business's web site. Such a law would allow minority groups to avoid offensive interactions/persecution and also allow religious people, bigots, etc to more widely share their precious beliefs with the community in which they do business. It might also help to shut down more than a few businesses who which to deal in exclusion.
10
But he does sell to them. He just refused to make a custom cake.
6
So he’s only partly anti-gay?
1
Great - once again one of my comments, as contrary to the general tenor of the NYT's liberal bias, has been suppressed. Let me try again.
The Supreme Court's ruling in favor of the baker is a well need rebuttal to the crypto-fascism of the progressive left that is masquerading as 'liberal'. The dogmatism of the secular left has gone from being a balance against religious dictate that held sway up through the 1950's to now being persecutors of the religious freedoms that this country was founded on. They have become our modern day Puritans - and they need to be checked, as this ruling does.
7
Not Puritans, who were consumed by their religious beliefs. Modern day liberals want to keep religion out of the everyday lives of our citizens, especially those whose beliefs differ. They don’t think that God dictates that only one faith has all the answers. And they want to expand, not shrink the rights of human beings in their interactions with each other.
2
@Mike Iker
Contrary to what you and liberals profess, this country was founded on an acceptance of religious diversity and a role for religion in the daily lives of the American people. That is, the freedom to exercise, or not exercise, our beliefs and to allow them to guide us in civic, community and personal discourse at all levels.
America was NOT founded on the nullification of all religious beliefs as subordinate to some all encompassing secular humanism - the implicit and at time explicit goal of liberals since the Great Society. That's not America, that's France. So if that's what your looking for - bon voyage.
4
This is great. Nice to see that the seething hatred of Christianity and Christians by our cultural elites (sic) is not yet all-powerful.
11
I guess our "progressives" will have to be more careful when fishing for the next outrage to bring to the Supreme Court.
4
Wrong. They didn’t exactly lose.
1
The collective “oomph!” from the deflating left. Common sense prevails.
5
In the 21st century, why are we allowing childish "belief" in imaginary sky friends to dominate public policy and our legal system?
I DON'T respect anyone who believes some invisible overlord's preferences should rule my life, and I certainly don't want my society's rules and laws to pander to the supposed desires of mythological creatures. It's abhorrent.
4
Amen.
1
I'm sure Mr. Phillips' business will do well now, so long as his deeply held religious convictions don't prevent him from baking for the bigots sure to flock to his store. What a Masterpiece of so-called Christianity. What would Jesus have done? He'd have baked the cake and blessed the union.
142
I find it difficult to call myself a Christian any longer, because the term indicates a person who is totally unfamiliar with anything Jesus said or did. It's astounding!
9
TRB writes,
What would Jesus have done? He'd have baked the cake and blessed the union.
And now I ask: on what basis, other than your own personal social opinion, do you base this assessment? Surely there is a text reference somewhere...anywhere...other than perhaps some modern revisionist scholar?
4
I know. It's really sad. I'm not even Christian, but I look up to a lot of things Jesus (supposedly) did and said. In a lot of ways, he was the first real radical, challenging the authority of the Roman state. Unfortunately this point is lost on a lot of younger radicals who equate Jesus with the actions of current self-identifying "Christians."
in the years to come, history will record that the great country that was once America was destroyed by a tiny thing: the hyphen. from the moment when the hyphenated-American came into being, the ruin of the country was inevitable.
politicians used the hyphen to divide the once great American population that was able to save the world, not once but twice, into smaller and smaller factions. politicians then touted to these factions that their rights were more important than anyone else's. this had the effect of sharply dividing the population into small groups pitted against each other. this animosity led to any groups inability to compromise with any other group bogging down government as well as society on a whole. at this point it was impossible for America and Americans to have any "collective" will as a country, such as there was during the world wars. America became to look like any other European country. excessively socialistic and liberal, placing the emphasis on the concerns of the few, or the one, over the concerns of the many. this ultimately led to the breakup of the country into smaller "member" states that struggled to work together or compromise. civil unrest led to mass poverty and the country became the 3rd world nation it is today.
that's how history will record it.
5
I disgree. America is being destroyed, but I blame the GOP.
If our history truly showed that the focus had always been on the 'concern/good of the many' then it's unlikely people would have started advocating for equal treatment of 'their' group. But the assumption, historically, of the 'good of the many' was actually favoring white, straight men especially those born into wealth. Groups self-advocate (rightly so) for equal treatment and opportunities.
And I am always perturbed when I hear people blame 'identity politics' for things. We've always had identity politics (they just weren't called that) and again historically those politics of identity served white straight men.
5
The baker did not discriminate against the gay men because of who they were. He simply refused to endorse what they wanted to do (marry) because it was contrary to his religious convictions. The two men could have respected the difference of opinion. But opening Pandora’s box wider is what people of the left have been doing for 50 years and so the men went through the courts—the least democratic of our branches of government. But a bit of civility, not a court, was what was needed. If a black baker was being forced to bake a Little Dragon birthday cake for a KKK customer, the so called Civil Rights commission in Colorado would not have made the same decision. And many NYT readers would strongly support the Black baker.
10
ehillesum
the kkk is a terrorist and hate organization.
the customers were two gay men planning their wedding.
how can you even begin to equate the two?
1
I'm loving all the homosexual and pro-gay straight people angst. Far too many on this comment thread are virtue signaling their liberal/progressive credentials while attempting to belittle or shame anyone who doesn't share their views. Problem is that the deference to the liberal viewpoint that dominated US politics for the last 60 years is collapsing. So shaming neutral and undecided voters no longer works. And as time goes on, people who don't share liberal/progressive views on each and every issue will continue believing what they believe and doing what they want to do regardless of shaming tactics by liberals/progressives. Put another way, the extreme Left has succeeded in making it reputable for someone to openly despise minorities, gays, etc. because the Left seeks to control everyone's thoughts as well as their actions. Why else do you think someone like Trump won?!
The two idiots should simply have taken their business elsewhere. It's not like every baker refused them service pursuant to some oppressive system like the one blacks faced in the South during the Jim Crow era. They were not in a small town where there was only one baker. They had other options. And taking their business elsewhere would have denied the baker their money. That would, if enough people did the same, hurt him far more than anything else and (perhaps) give him pause. Instead, they made the baker a martyr and his views sympathetic. Very arrogant and stupid.
11
Yep trump won the popular vote
1
What he won was the “real” vote. This isn’t Athens of 2500 years ago. We live in a constitutional REPUBLIC. Read the Constitution; it will help you to understand...maybe...
3
Hey Mal!! Trump may not have won the popular vote but last thing I recall from my high school civics class and subsequent years in law school (USC Law School, class of 2003) is that it is the Electoral College that decides who is the next president and not the popular vote. Everyone who has ever run for President knows this. Hillary was well aware of this Constitutional principle in 2016. Yet she CHOSE to ignore voters in certain battleground states that she deemed hers and not worthy of her time (and that after denying Democratic voters a real chance to vote for or against Bernie Sanders). Watching the liberal meltdown on the November 8-9, 2016, and since then here in SF has been something I had to personally see to believe. People here and in places like NYC, DC, LA and other big metropolitan centers think they should call the shots, even though the Constitution is set up to prevent just that kind of tyranny of the majority. And when it happened, people reacted like spoiled teenagers with pouting, refusal to go to work, tears, rage and other displays that do nothing to make this black man sympathetic to their loss. And this from someone who did NOT vote for Trump, Hillary or any of the other presidential candidates offered up in 2016 (I wrote in Colin Powell).
2
A blind person could see that there is a trend (more than a trend) in this country to upend what most of the population believed to be a fact of life. There are males and females that have a primal desire to procreate and prolong our supposed civilization. The fact that there other minorities that do not believe this or accept this is academic and non runners. That they should be respected for their opinions is also a given. However, if they think that their position should be shoved down the throats of the majority is very disturbing and irritating. The latter causes some of us to spew hatred toward these minorities which has no place in our society either. What to do about it is another story to be told. We appear to have gone off the rails here. The Supreme Court decision with the Baker case seems to be a step in the right direction.
7
In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "argument to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition must be true because many or most people believe it, often concisely encapsulated as: "If many believe so, it is so."
-Wikipedia
1
Mullins and Craig should have to dig deep into their own pockets to help defray the expenses on this one.
No brainer. Honestly, the only people that benefit from such specious litigation are lawyers. Of course that baker had every right to follow the convictions of his faith. The country is founded upon such principles.
Those two "husbands" should be ashamed.
15
"This country is founded on such principles". Yeah, like hanging witches. Those were religious trials. God help us.
4
And when one's faith tells someone to not serve people of a certain race/ skin color? That's okay as long as it's cloaked in religion?
4
Most if not all trials for witchcraft in the American colonies were civil, not religious trials. Of course, the separation of church and state was minimal as most colonies where a witchcraft trial took place had an established church.
1
Yes! This makes me so very happy. Such an important decision. A great day for Mr Phillips. Congratulations Sir. You should never have had to defend your faith like this. I hope this has even strengthened your faith if that is possible. May God bless you.
11
Jack Phillips never said he would not serve the gay couple but that only he was unable to bake a specialized gay wedding cake. He offered the couple any one of his many ready made cakes in his shop for them to purchase.
Mr. Phillips was a devout practicing Christian who did not want to go against his strictly held religious beliefs. He absolutely showed no discrimination towards the gay couple and even had friends who were homosexual. He just did not want to violate his religious convictions.
This is a wonderful day for people of religious faith who will not have to sacrifice their religious principles. This was a wise decision on the part of the Supreme Court justices and hopefully is a positive sign for others who object to going against their faith. This court decision proves that religious freedom still plays an important part in our society.
5
I believe you are misinformed about the details of the original case. The couple never even got to the point of discussing the designs of the specialized cake. They never asked him to make a "gay wedding cake." He turned them down before it even got to that point.
I mean, who knows, maybe the couple was going to request a phallic cake. I don't think you even need to hide behind religion to decline to make that. But he turned them down merely because it was a cake that was going to be served at a gay wedding. I don't believe the fact that he offered to sell them a ready-made cake is an out. He should have discussed the design, and if there was something specifically objectionable the couple wanted, the baker would have a stronger standing, in my view. (Of course if the "objectionable" content was two grooms, I think we're in a grayer area).
Should a Jew be compelled by the government to provide BBQ ribs for a wedding?
Why not?
4
If said Jewish person owns a BBQ shop, one would think there would not be much of an issue. I know this is supposed to be an incisive hypothetical, but you might want to try again. It's not as if Baker Jack was pulled off the street and forced to bake a cake!
Not a good example. If they don't sell pork then no, but if they sell pork but just don't want to support a Christian bbq then...
If the Jewish caterer has pork ribs on his menu of catering options, then yes. If they are not something he makes for anyone, then no.
Likewise, if the baker publicizes that he will make a buttercream, a chocolate, or a lemon wedding cake, he would not be expected to make a carrot cake unless it was mutually agreed upon.
The case wasn't about what the chef/baker makes, but whom he would sell it to.
I read the full decision, and I agree with it. I believe the baker won this case ONLY because the Colorado Commission who decided this matter initially was openly and vocally hostile to the baker's religious beliefs on record during the hearing. They shot their big mouths off about what a creep this guy was, thereby not remaining neutral towards religion. Had the Commission members shut their fat mouths and behaved professionally, I think the baker would have lost. This decision by the Supreme Court wasn't anti-gay. I'm gay, not Christian, and I do think the baker is a creep, and I think the decision today was reasonable.
353
Me, too, on both counts. I am gay and I agree with the decision based on its merits. What is truly disheartening is A) The Left's hysterical misreading of the ruling and B) The Left's hysterical attacks on people, including me, who dare to agree in the first place.
38
I appreciate both of your remarks. It seems today that even legitimate decisions reached through reason. logic and law are immediately conflated with disparate agendas that nullify almost any amount of subsequent reasonable, rational discussion that can lead to an amicable way forward. For this reason, its necessary to severely ration ones' consumption of anything but primary source material.
3
Exactly, it has nothing to do with gay/Christian/conservative/liberal. What if you were a baker and you were ordered to bake a cake that says "I Hate Gay People - The Bible is Proof!"? You would go all the way to the Supreme Court, no?
It has everything to do with the inability of the state to force someone against their will to create something that goes against their fundamental beliefs.
16
The liberal angst expressed in the comments are overblown, but more so just sad.
4
Maybe we're just tired of discrimination? Did you ever consider that? That's it's 2018, there's a sexist, racist egomaniac running the country, and we're still being subjected to hate based on bronze age mythology, and we're tired of it
4
In the words of Jesus Christ, "forgive them father for they know not what they do."
As a 58 year-old gay man living in America, having suffered through a Catholic upbringing, anti-gay discrimination in employment and housing, the AIDS crisis in which the U.S. government initially (and for a very long time) sat on its hands as my surviving friends and I buried a generation of talented and creative you men, and a host of earlier wrong-headed SCOTUS decisions (Texas sodomy laws, anybody? Bush v Gore?? Citizens United??)...I cannot even begin to count how many times I've had to remind myself of Christ's words in the face of so much unenlightened, yet immoral behavior.
Yes, I understand this ruling was a narrow one and that another case will likely come along to yield a different result. But not if the unenlightened, immoral president has another shot at altering the high court.
This is a very sad day for America.
708
couldn't have said it better myself good sir, a sad day indeed.
21
Don’t feel badly. Eventually this will backfire. Businesses who stand by their beliefs will lose business. Businesses that take political, religious or other stands chase more business away than garner more of it.
17
You post an important reminder about the future of the Supreme Court. Democrats tried to remind voters about the importance of the Supreme Court in the last election... and look who we got, Neil Gorsuch. We must vote as if our lives depend on it.
28
This is a sad, sad day for all heterophobes and homophiles.
1
The court opens Pandora's Box, and the winds of prejudice will swirl furiously. While we're on the subject of myth, let's be truthful: "God" has never been proven to exist, whereas we know that homosexuality, regardless of any belief in its moral position in human behavior, is real.
25
The Supreme Court opened Pandora's Box when it imposed same-sex marriage on the majority of states in the union that had previously voted not to recognize it - and that, in defiance of the Tenth Amendment.
1
Boycott his bakery! This is a simple and effective solution.
46
In fact, we should march around the bakery the same way they march around Planned Parenthood, shouting invectives at kids trying to get contraceptives.
4
On the contrary; advertise the courage of a man and his artistry who stood firm on his principles! Marriage is a sacrament between man and a women...period!
3
And picket in front of it. And confront people who wish to enter it. In other words, treat it like a women's health clinic.
4
Religious liberty has been under assault from the Left for decades. This decision is just one small step towards restoring personal freedom.
9
Your freedom. For those of us who believe in a more equal society, not so much. Fortunately, no matter how much it tries to game the system, religion is dying a well-deserved, albeit, slow death.
Secularism and atheism worked out so well in places like the Soviet Union and China, didn’t it...
1
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, Chips, the voting rights act, public education, a public army have been killing religious liberty.
Happy Holidays! The war on Christmas continues...
Sanity at the Supreme Court level, how refreshing!
8
This ruling is so disappointing on many levels. People have every right to their religious beliefs, but when we start to deny goods and services to people based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation, we are headed down a slippery slope to pre-Civil Rights era abuses.
739
This isn’t just a slippery slope of law. It’s a 6-lane highway. It wasn’t that long ago that it was perfectly legal for “Christians” to refuse to do business with Jews because Jews didn’t accept Jesus as their Lord and Savior, and Christians believed that Jews were Christ killers. My parents wanted to buy a house in Manhasset, Long Island, in 1965, and their real estate agent told them she would not make an offer on the house they liked because Manhasset was “restricted;” there was a covenant in the Town By-Laws prohibiting property to be sold to Jews. That’s how Great Neck (and Scarsdale, NY) became predominantly Jewish communities; the surrounding townships had covenants written by Christian men prohibiting property to be sold to Jews.
When those discriminatory restrictions were finally struck down as a result of lawsuits after the 1964 Civil Rights Act, nobody complained that Christians’ religious rights were being violated if they had to live next door to a Jewish family.
19
The slope is equally slippery if we people must constantly rely on the Politically and Socially Correct Police, P&SCP, to come to our aid each time we become offended or our feelings become hurt.
7
Bunk. Be discriminated against and then get back to us all. Heavens....
1
This was a long shot from the start. Sorry, but the couple should have thrown some shade, walked out, ordered the cake elsewhere, then make it known in the broader community that the supposedly famous baker is really a major league bigot. Let's pick our fights more carefully, folks. America is under siege by a dictator-in-waiting, so let's pay attention to basic survival issues, like the Constitution itself.
585
"This was a long shot from the start."
Why is that the case? You dont explain. Many would say it was was an easy issue about equal civil rights when walking into any store.
21
Must be news to you, but most people care about more than one thing at a time. I wonder how you missed the parallels between dictator-in-waiting and his emboldening behavior (racists coming out of the woodwork), and this case (inevitable signs going up preemptively declaring homosexuals not serviced). We must fight back on *every* issue, not just the ones you care about.
36
You either are equal under the law or not. Doesn’t matter whether it is a cake or the right for medical services. Disgraceful ruling!
49
Great. Now bakers will be able to pick and choose what they will and won't put on a cake based on what they themselves consider to be offensive. I hope the Jewish bakery doesn't cancel my order for a Hitler celebration cake now because that will just ruin my Nazi themed birthday plans... [/sarcasm]
4
Since it is an issue of free speech then yes it does in fact affirm that Jewish bakers do not have to write Swastikas on a cake. Or any baker for that matter.
We will not survive as a species unless we can outgrow our pathetic need for a Cosmic Daddy to love and punish us severely.
Will we ever outgrow this psychological weakness?
11
I sure hope not.
1
First, let it be stated that Phillips is a bad businessman. He's in the business of making cakes. Someone wanted to give him money to bake a cake. Period. Does he look into the personal histories of all his cake clients? How does he view a wedding cake for a previously divorced client? A birthday cake for a child born out of wedlock? Has he ever baked a cake for someone's mistress? My sense is that despite "sincerely held beliefs" Mr. Phillips has never carried his "conviction" as far as to find out about other clients. This isn't about "religious freedom" this is about legalizing homophobia.
Could this decision be used to legally discriminate against groups you simply don't like based on "religion?" To me, it sounds like it.
2118
You need to go brush up on the facts of the case. He was willing to sell them a standard wedding cake. They wanted him to create a customized artsy cake celebrating their gay marriage. It was being forced to undertake the artistic expression of something he didn't agree with that he was opposed to- not making these gents a cake.
If I go to an artist and ask them to commission painting of something they disagree with, they can rightly refuse my business. This is not discrimination.
8
you are exactly right. I say, "vote with your pocketbook."
27
The problem with that "public business" reasoning is that this isn't a wedding cake shop who refused to sell one of the dozens of pre-made products sitting on the shoves to a gay couple, they refused to specially make a specific customer-requested design which conflicted with their religious beliefs.
It's more like forcing an artist to accept a commission for some painting that the artist finds offensive, when the artist sometimes takes commissions but also sells a lot of existing paintings they made by choice.
17
This is what we get from an almost entirely Catholic Supreme Court. The only surprise is that Justice Sotomayer dissented.
The main stream media continues to misrepresent this case. The baker is not not discriminating against gays. It was the product. You can't force a Kosher deli to sell pork. The baker offered the gays one of the off the shelf cakes. They declined.
18
I disagree. The pork example is a red herring. The baker refused to make a cake for these men because he disapproved of their (legal) marriage. He is trying to use his religion as a sword, not a shield- he wants to impose his beliefs on others. Moreover, he is very selective with his moral opprobrium- why doesn’t he refuse to make cakes for adulterers, divorcees, unmarried mothers and the like? Or will these people be his next targets?
3
Actually, the mainstream media continues to accurately represent this case. The baker already sold the product that he refused to sell to the couple - unlike your imaginary kosher deli. Your argument lacks basic logic.
2
I intend this comment to be read by members of the supreme court. I'm a 73 year old gay man. I have been out since 1958. I was baptized Roman Catholic but no longer share that faith. I have no position on the existence of a God, and I have no confidence in the goodness of organized religious institutions.
I do know what its like to be actively and repeatedly discriminated against because of my sexual orientation and history of sexual and emotional intimates.
The burden this ruling has laid on my heart is enormous. The finding that anybody's "religious" beliefs and imaginings enables them to deny me services offered to everybody else simply because I love and desire men trumps my right to be served because of their prejudice against me tells me without doubt that I am not welcome as a equal member of this society, that I am definitely lesser, that I am not entitled to fair treatment.
What am I to do at age 73?
This decision will prove more destructive than Citizens United.
Whatever your twisted logic, given your assent to this finding, I find you all who signed on to this personally repugnant given all the discrimination and abuse I've suffered in the United States as a gay man.
Now I must decide if I want to remain a citizen of this benighted country.
1008
Your comment leads me to believe that you did not even read the opinion.
26
Please do not leave the U.S.
We need thoughtful, intelligent people like you to remain in this country.
64
Vulcanalex,
Can you not discern the difference between celebrating the values of nazi-ism and the values of marriage? Are they the same?
No matter what the courts say this “baker” is intolerant, small minded and believes in the silly idea that people walk on water. He should be put in a mental institute.
10
It’s simpler than that — Don’t patronize his establishment.
2
Religion shouldn't be included in protected classes. Believing in a delusion should not be protected, it should be pitied. If you believe that the imaginary is real, the state should provide affordable and in some cases free access to mental health services. The sooner we address the mental health crises that is religion throughout the world, the sooner we can live in a just, scientific and reality based society. We certainly shouldn't allow these delusional people to be in positions of power until they recieve treatment.
11
A wonderful day for religious homophobes, bigots, racists, misogynists, anti-Semites, Ayrans, Christian Shariah Law and the bottom of the American barrel.
Trump Nation United !
954
Yes, Breyer and Kagan are noted Trumpists.
36
Soc – you need to re-read the article, also the wording of the narrow SC decision.
14
Your “bottom of the barrel” comment is ignorant. The most prestigious American universities were founded by Christians.
16
This is an excellent outcome. The couple were offered other wedding cakes available for purchase, it is just that the owner would not make one of his specialty designed cakes.
Had the court rules otherwise, it would have been see as a threat to all artists, no matter the genre of their art. Artists no matter the genre of their art should be free of government interference and censorship.
Bravo Masterpiece Cake!!
232
If they are following the bible so strictly they need to also ensure that they not sell to those who have had premarital sex, been married before, or have committed adultery. Otherwise it is just a farce.
606
Think again. The decision was not based on artistic freedom. A nonreligious baker, under this decision, could not turn away these men. If a modern-day Picasso-of-cake-baking were not religious, he would still have to bake the cake. The decision supports religion-based bigotry, not artistic freedom.
62
Ms. Weller, you, and I suppose the court, presume cake making is an art. It is craft. No different than a custom bicycle, chair or bed. Even a custom song or painting is craft once you remove the maker's point of view--which creations must have to be true art and not work for hire. This was business.
To paraphrase: "Citizens, no matter their race...etc... should be free of government interference and censorship." This must be true in a free society its people conduct business. I don't walk into a store wondering about the owner's, what-have-you, and neither should she.
11
As a gay man i support this decision. I dont accept straight people pushing their beliefs down my throat. And I therefore don't need to push my opinions down anybody else's throats.
I also don't like how this couple said they were "offended". When we behave like kids, we deserve to be treated like kids. It's ok to be offended.
288
You have absolutely no understanding of this case.
10
As the child of an interracial couple that had me out of wedlock, I would be rightfully offended if a baker, florist, or other provider of services to the public refused my parents their service because of their relationship. Not only is it discrimination, but it is political public humiliation that seeks to alienate people from their own community. The supreme court has upheld miscegenation laws (Pace v. Alabama) until it changed its mind in in 1967 (Loving v. Virginia).
A future supreme court will no doubt overturn this unjust precedent in a better time.
18
Buying a cake is pushing your beliefs down someone's throat? Seriously? A trip to the grocery store must be a nightmare for you.
17
It seems the crux of the issue was that a man with mockable beliefs was mocked by the commissioners in Colorado. Apparently, the first amendment protects certain speech, namely speech that is based on mythology, more than others. Apparently, not only does this so-called Christian get to discriminate, but he also gets to have his mockable ideas not mocked because his feelings are more important than civil rights, and criticism of religion is worse than actual oppression of homosexuals.
717
The commission didn't mock his beliefs. Mocking would suggest they were flippant or made jokes of said religious beliefs. The commission didn't do that. They simply made several statements, such as pointing out the historic fact that "religious freedom" had been used as justification for oppressive institutions like slavery. The Supreme Court apparently thinks a civil rights commission needs to approach the issue with greater deference. But as Justice Ginsburg noted, pointing that religious freedom has been used to justify oppression doesn't mean the commission was biased. And the court majority doesn't explain how it biased the decision.
4
So Christian beliefs held by hundreds of millions of people are mockable, and based on mythology? I don't believe this person was a "so-called Christian", but an actual one, who simply did not want to be forced to engage in commerce in contravention with his beliefs (not "feelings"). The supreme court seems to have agreed. Your next stop going to be at a Halal butcher to force them to slice you up some boiled ham?
43
I wonder if you would be saying the same thing if this was a Jewish or Muslim baker...because they hold the same belief about not baking a gay pride cake.
36
Liberals cannot have it both ways.... if bakers should be forced to bake a cake for everyone, then banks, like BOA, must be forced to serve the firearms community by servicing credit charges.
6
The baker gets to bake his cake and eat it too.
What an absurd decision. Following the Supreme's logic, all the F.W. Woolworth's in the South had to do was refuse to serve Blacks because their god said it were a sin. Anyone who needs religion to make-up an excuse to discriminate is not a religion I'd want to believe in. Making god the scapegoat for bad behavior is pretty pathetic.
If this is Christianity, who'd want to be a part of this nonsense? When self-proclaimed good Christians tell a customer their baking skills come from a higher authority, I'd be headed for the door before one could say: crackpot.
Reminds me of one of our great Founders. He wrote an entire treatise "proving" the inferiority of the African race. He deemed them sub-human. He became president. No it wasn't Trump. He can't read let alone write. This was back in the olden days when presidents had slaves, and that was just fine for White Americans.
The alleged good White Christians running this country for so long have had it pretty good for too long. For two centuries they've been in charge until some uppity Black guy comes along and proves to be a greater president than almost all of the previous 42 White men who preceded him. For some, that was too much to take. The result of that White Rage? The current Racist-in-Chief.
White America is so scared of losing their majority, they'll elect an idiot like Trump and use their god and religion to justify not baking a cake.
DD
Manhattan
19
7-2 is NOT a narrow decision
12
Best thing now is for a huge slice of this baker's non-gay customers to boycott him. No-one should support religious bigotry of this kind.
10
I did not read the entire opinion (as most folks also did not). I would think, however, that the writer of this piece must have?
So it would seem that the writer should have answered this basic question: why did SCOTUS not remand the case for a new hearing (with a different judge)? I'm so confused by this! The Administrative Law Judge who ruled in favor of the gay couple is the true culprit here, right? That individual violated (according to SCOTUS) the rights of the baker. Not the gay couple who just want to be treated as human beings.
3
What if someone wanted a porn cake that depicted male and female genitalia and were refused? I wonder how folks would feel about that.
1
I think it is sad that a publication like the Times chooses to define discrimination in such a narrow way. These gay Americans are free to marry. No one was attempting to prevent them from doing so. No one was picketing their wedding reception or egging their cars. No one was preventing them from shopping in the bakery.
Instead it is the gay couple who are the aggressors here and attempting to force people to participate in their weddings. The rights of religious believers were denied by Colorado. And the Supreme Court said so. But yet, the Times, seems to be saying, the Supreme Court was wrong and the baker was wrong and they support the behavior of the gay community in forcing their opinions and beliefs onto those who don’t see it the same way they do. You can’t legislate acceptance and agreement. You can have a law that provides the freedom for gay couples to marry, which they have, but that doesn’t seem to be enough for the gay community. I have no idea what their purpose is. The gay community and religious believers are unlikely to ever see this issue the same way. If live and let live is not the best policy, what is?
We live in a country that is supposed to be a “melting pot” where people of all different beliefs and values live together. That requires accommodation and compromise and respect. The gay community is doing none of that. And the Times evidently supports that.
9
I would say that anyone should be able to buy a cake that was premade, but a specialty cake is different. Reverse the buyer to a white supremacist forcing a Jewish cake maker to design a KKK cake. Would liberals force that cake designer to make the cake?
13
I am flabbergasted at the way "Christians" pick and choose the parts of the Bible to act upon, especially choosing so-called laws in the Old Testament, which have nothing to do with Jesus Christ or their supposed Christianity. God sent Jesus to settle his message for once and for all, which was so simple, and so difficult for mere humans to follow: Love one another. "You have heard people say, 'Love your neighbors and hate your enemies,' But I tell you to love your enemies and pray for anyone who mistreats you. Then you will be acting like your Father in heaven. He makes the sun rise on both good and bad people. And he sends rain for the ones who do right and for the ones who do wrong. If you love only those people who love you, will God reward you for that?"’ (Matthew 5:43-46) In other words, it's not YOUR job to judge anybody, it is God's. Meanwhile just be nice. Be kind. So simple. Just ask, "What would Jesus do?"
12
"The court’s decision was narrow, and it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment."
The Court's decision also left open an even larger question -- whether its own judicial powers gives it the authority to make such a proclamation.
The Court is itself, after all, a branch of the federal government. If the Court approves of religion-based discrimination by private individuals that harms others with different religious views, or even nonreligious views for that matter, isn't the Court violating the Establishment Clause? Did our Founders only intend that the Legislative and Executive Branches could violate that clause? Or would they have also disapproved of the Judicial Branch, in effect, doing the same through judge-made law, that is, through case precedent?
1
It looks like the court tried to punt the issue by ruling that the decision of the lower court was tainted instead of taking a stand on the issues on hand. Can this technique effectively sequester the outcome from future precedent? Is this a valid precedent for gays seeking artistic services for their weddings or not?
And why would anyone want a wedding cake made by someone who didn't want them to get married?
2
Who believes these two situations are at all the same?
1. Three bakers turn down a customer who wants a cake decorated with words that defame people who are gay.
2. A different baker says he won't sell a cake to two gay men, because the baker doesn't believe in same sex marriage.
Justice Gorsuch, for one, indicated when he was questioned before his appointment to the Supreme Court that he is able to use his considerable intellect, skills, knowledge of Law, to be able to say the two situations are the same, or at least similar, and he supports what the bakers in both situations did. None of the bakers were at fault, and none should be penalized.
There we are, with far to go towards Equal Rights in our society, our world.
1
Knee-jerk reactions of "discrimination" are worthy of closer examination. Obviously, being denied a wedding cake doesn't rise to the level of "discrimination" as many would like to believe. Today, when someone can purchase a wedding cake elsewhere and purchase a ready-made cake and every other item in the bakery, it's hardly the type of "discrimination" people would like to see it as. A refusal to make a cake just doesn't rise to the level of "discrimination" for most reasonable people.
5
As a previously highlighted commenter on this issue, and with a heavy heart this morning, I felt the need to weigh in on what three (maybe four) actions I will be taking moving forward.
My comment on a previous article discussed my print shop, where I manufacture personalized items for my customers, no matter their differing beliefs.
My first action will be to appear on the public sidewalk outside "Masterpiece" as frequently as possible with a sign that reads "Baked with Hate" to publicly boycott this bigot.
My second action will be to look into finding or founding a religion that truly supports MY sincerely held moral beliefs - considering Christianity in everyday practice by people like this baker has left me scratching my head at the hipocracy - that will now afford me legal standing to deny service to those with whom I find objection based on said religion.
My third action will be to discuss with a lawyer my apparent right to refuse service to those with whom I do disagree. I'll be doing this considering I frequently feel MY 1st Amendment rights are infringed upon by making bumper stickers with actual words to which I deeply and sincerely object.
And last, I am considering opening a second business where gay wedding cakes are the speciality, if for no other reason than to capitalize on the broad swath of potential customers in Denver this "Christian baker" is turning away.
4
Great job, Supreme Court!!!!!!! Finally we get a normal decision from you. It is time that you rule in favor of those of us with a different opinion.
4
"'Members of the panel, he wrote, had acted with 'clear and impermissible hostility' to sincerely held religious beliefs.
One commissioner in particular, Justice Kennedy wrote, had crossed the line in saying that 'freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.'"
The interactions of freedom of expression and civil rights protection are complex, but how can a simple statement of historical fact about religious doctrine and the laws concerning its practice be considered government hostility toward sincerely held religious beliefs as long as it is relevant to the case?
If this article is an accurate representation of Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, it appears he's, at best, kicking hard decisions down the road.
1
So the next time a doctor refuses to treat a gay patient because of deeply held, sincere religious beliefs, the Supreme Court can feel real proud of the precedent it set. The nine justices should be a lot less proud, however, of hiding behind the Colorado commissioners' "hostility" toward religion to render their "narrow" (minded) verdict.
2
What am I missing here? In what way was the Supreme Court ruling narrow? Wasn’t it a 7-2 decision for the Baker?
The headline here is wrong - the baker did not turn away a gay couple. The couple were free to buy their Sunday donuts and free to shop in the bakery. So no, they were not turned away. The gay couple attempted to force the baker to make them a wedding cake to celebrate their gay marriage. That’s where the line is.
The gay couple by law are free to marry. They were free to shop in the bakery. But they aren’t the only people with rights. The baker had the right not to be forced to make a cake that he felt uncomfortable to make.
What is the gay community trying to prove by not only forcing people to bake cakes for their weddings, but using the courts as weapons in a vindictive and petty attempt to punish people who disagree with them?
I am reassured by this ruling that there remains some fair minded individuals in this country, but from reading many of the comments around these articles, they are few and far between.
5
The Baker has proved that 'Making Cake isn't a Cakewalk'
when the customer's marriage is a taboo in the religious faith of the baker.
The baker has successfully baked the cake of Karl Marx, i.e 'Religion is an opium to mind' by his denial to make a cake for the Gay couple.
The baker is in need of the enlightenment. Suppose,the baker is a Gay and the customer is a bride groom who orders for a cake, I am sure that the Gay-Baker would have given him a discount on his order. The world has to progress further to accept the hidden colors to the naked eye,'ultra blue and infra red' when everyone wants to display that he or she is leading a life in the white light.
The religious animus of the subject baker has indeed created the diversification in the baker's world with the exclusive
bakeries for Gay Couple, Lesbian, LGBT etc. Soon, the world could witness exclusive hotels,bakeries,holiday homes,island, --- may be a new religion and their own religious code, if we aren't ready to accept them as, "The Seekers of the Social Recognition in the 21st century where the holy books of all religions are conspicuous by the absence of description on gay marriage,LGBT. ..and the animosity is a mere offshoot of the blind faith and bigotry. When we live in the world of Direct Current and Alternating Current, why don't we ready to face the meager proportion of Counter Current in the mundane life?.
Here is my question, that does get to the "legitimacy" of this "sincerely held belief":
Why is that homosexuality is usually the thing that they have a sincerely held belief about? Out of all the things mentioned in the Bible it is this one?
Why are there no Christian owned business refusing to serve the wealthy? There are far more admonitions against wealth than homosexuality in the Bible. Even Jesus says "And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God"
Why are there no Christian owned businesses refusing service to those lie, cheat, or steal, or commit adultery?These again are spoken of harshly in the Bible over and over including the Sins and Unrighteous in 1 Corinthians 6:9. Why do Christians even support such people but turn on one other "sin" as too much to bear?
Why are there no Christian owned business refusing service to women who teach men, or exercise authority over a man in defiance of God as stated in 1 Timothy 2:12-14?
6
I just don't get it. Surely there is more than one baker in town for the couple to choose from. Why should a private business owner be forced to make a cake celebrating something he is sincerely against on religious principles, so much so that he is willing to forgo their business? It isn't like he was discriminating against them by refusing to sell them cookies or other items on display in the bakery.
9
The headline for this piece is wrong and misleading.
The Supreme Court DID NOT side with the baker. It said the baker's religious beliefs had not been considered appropriately since the lower court showed bias. NOTHING MORE.
While the misleading headline might get you greater readership, it can do real damage. I could easily lead some poor misguided person to think discrimination based on sexual orientation is acceptable and cause serious additional problems.
Let's be clear. Discrimination based on sexual orientation is discrimination based on religious beliefs since many churches accept, perform, and bless same gender marriages. Religious freedom applies to all and all religions and churches.
3
Please, somebody tell me, how does "baking a cake" and even decorating it with words and flowers represent either religious expression or creative expression?
Because it's a wedding?
That's just nonsense.
1
So, now a business person (or person in general) doesn't have the freedom to deny service to someone they don't want to do business with?
If the baker had made his price unreasonably high to discourage the customer would the customer have the same claim?
3
The baker and others who hold anti-LGBT beliefs cite the Bible to justify their belief and behavior.
So why don't they also espouse and fight for Deuteronomy 21: 18-21 in which a stubborn and rebellious son shall be taken by his mother and father so "all the men of the city shall stone him with stones, that he die...?"
Sounds like they're cherry picking what they want to believe and live by -- while self-righteously proclaiming their holiness and trying to coerce others to live by their cherry-picked rules.
6
If I were a U.S. Supreme Court Justice, with at least 4 colleagues of 'same [and sane] mind,' I would craft this eloquent decision in determination of this, and any other case alleging religious liberty as a 'defense' against provision of commercial services (including such as might concern contraception and constitutionally protected abortion rights:
"C'mon folks. Get real. There is no "supreme being " nor any son of surviving a disappeared one, nor any spirit-ghost, holy or 'otherwise.'
1
Baking, decorating, and selling cakes are not religious acts. They are producing products for businesses to sell. Refusing to sell cakes to certain people is as much a threat to civil and human rights as restaurant owners' refusal to serve African Americans.
8
No one in business that serves the public should be allowed to deny service to anyone. That is discrimination and should not be allowed in the United States of America. Wasn't this litigated when restaurants in the South refused to serve black diners at the lunch counter?!
7
Mary, "no one in business that serves the public should be allowed to deny service to anyone."? No one... deny anyone... for anything?? Should an African-American t shirt maker be required to print and sell racist slogans on t shirts for a skinhead rally? Should an Islamic baker be required to make and sell a cake with a derogatory statement against Muhammad just because an anti-Islamic individual requests it? Bear in mind this baker didn't refuse service to these customers in general, they could buy baked goods at his shop, he just refused to participate in their wedding ceremony because of his religious views of marriage. If no one can deny service to anyone for anything we enter a world where individuals, with ill intent, can harass and abuse business owners by forcing them to do things against their conscious with the force of government... just because they can. Personally I don't want to live in that world. And personally I don't think I should lose many of my individual constitutional rights just because I apply for a business license. If the government can't force you to use my business and services then I don't think they should force me to serve you regardless of what you request and how much it may offend my religious beliefs.
2
The Supreme Court has just said, in essence: "Let them eat cake, but not if they're gay." For shame.
4
What rhetorical nonsense. The reason so many people are in agreement is the couple's case was always unreasonable. They were served everything else in the store. There was no bias against them personally. They couldn't get a specific cake made (one which they were free to purchase elsewhere). Their efforts to force the baker to perform according to their will was seen for what it is.
3
Evangelical Christians may likely tout this ruling as a declaration that their faith holds some high notoriety in American government.
Sadly they ignore the Establishment Clause and other Constitutional requirements that government be secular.
Recognizing that this was a case of private business discriminating, versus governmental action, but imagine if a Christian was denied a service or product because of their faith? They too would be outraged and claim unfairness.
The First Amendment is clear but parsed into two parts. The Freedom of Belief is absolute. Americans can believe in Yahweh, Christ, Allah, the Man-on-the-Moon or nothing and that fails to impact another citizen's civil rights. The Freedom of Practice is limited in that it cannot impair the civil rights of another.
Sadly some Christians replace loving thy neighbor with hatred and discrimination.
3
After reading that the baker offered to sell the grooms to be any other wedding cake and other things as well, I changed my mind about this case. What the baker refused to do was bake a speciality cake that he believes, right or wrong, is an affront to his religious beliefs. He simply could not countenance baking a special cake, using his creative talents, to celebrate a union that his religious beliefs opposed. In my view it was like asking an Orthodox Jew to eat pork on Passover. It was vile, reprehensible and outrageous for this baker to bake a cake specifically to celebrate homosexual/gay marriage. So, he offered to sell the customers any other cake without question. I believe he went above and beyond and that he was courteous and generous too.
There clearly was no discrimination. The gay men could have had their cake and could have ate it too. There was no hostility.
Clearly the baker recognized that this couple was gay and wanted to be married and wanted a wedding cake. There were several to choose from. The men were not denied services.
14
Wrong! The baker refused to sell any kind of custom wedding cake. He would have sold them a pie or cookies or plain round cake already in his display case, but he would not sell a custom wedding cake identical to what he baked for others. Bakeries don't have three tier cakes sitting on the shelf. A wedding cake is always a custom order.
3
Why are religions a protected class at all? We don't enshrine LARPers or other fantasy based role-playing games as protected classes, nor do I think we should. This is an age of science and reason, there is no future in faith, we proven faith and religion to be false empirically.
I think it's time to move the conversation to how we can treat the religous and faithful with compassionate care, but certainly we cant give constitutional protections to a mental illness.
2
The main problem with this case is that it involved only one baker. If the couple went to five or ten bakers with none willing to do the job, I think the outcome would have been different.
3
‘One [Colorado Civil Rights] commissioner in particular, Justice Kennedy wrote, had crossed the line in saying that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.”
‘Justice Kennedy wrote that “this sentiment is inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.”’
The commissioner was in the right. Kennedy was in the wrong. To the commissioner’s list you could add 9/11, the horrors that followed the Partition of India, most of what is going on in the Middle East today. And there’s always what the Children of Enlightenment did to the Native Americans, on the north and south continents and the area in between.
4
I disagree. The Commission had to apply the law evenly without bias towards religion. It failed to do so.
2
So if a business can't be forced to bake a cake that celebrates a message they don't agree with, can NFL players still be forced to stand on the field?
Seems that we are giving freedom to some ideas but not others
6
The Supreme court got it wrong. Personal religious freedom should not be relevant to a commercial, for-profit business. A cake is a cake is a cake. The goal of someone who runs a bakery is to sell baked goods. If this business person is now permitted to pass judgement on others based on their personal beliefs, the transaction becomes something more. Of course, the best next step is to choose the bakery down the street where the cakes wont be tainted by intolerance, an ingredient to be avoided at all cost.
4
" “The court today has offered dangerous encouragement to those who would deny civil rights to L.G.B.T. people,”
Amazing how the term "rights" gets thrown around. I remember a gay interviewee back in the 60s trying to get sympathy by saying "we had no rights". Actually he had plenty of rights: freedom of religion, freedom of speech, carrying a gun ( which I personally think should be repealed), protecting against cruel& unusual punishment, and others.
They had a civil right to a wedding cake? That's as silly as the politician who claimed that NRA members had a right to discounted airline tickets ( that happened last month)
5
Of course now the baker will have to question each and every customer to determine if they have a hidden agenda against his religion. He’s a Christian, so all those against his religious beliefs will have to be filtered and held at bay. Like minded people will feel empowered to do the same. Now let’s consider, who is against Jesus? Let’s think here. Oh yes, jews are non believers of Jesus „Christ“ so this man and his like minded people will stop selling to jews because they don’t believe in Jesus. Now that is a sticky wicket because we partly fought a world war to stop that kind of odious activity and we all worked so hard to become strong friends over the decades. If you now don’t understand why this court decision is awful you can be sure you will pay the price later in a big way.
5
The founding fathers who said "all men are created equal" were slaveowners kicking the can down a road that never ends, but guaranteed this would be a rut along the way.
3
By law, business owners are protected under the First Amendment and therefore, it then becomes harder for me or any other onlooker to argue their wrongdoings. However, if the Supreme Court were to create a reform in favor of protecting any sort of discrimination, it would destroy the foundational laws which comprise our country and would make way for everyday people to easily target one another. Not just who identify as part of the LGBT community but anyone as they see fit. This sort of protection would directly impede on the ‘life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness’ which all American inhabitants are promised and would slash the diversity which makes this country great.
The truth is that the American people need a change. But to the lawmakers out there, discrimination will not cut it.
4
Writing as a gay man myself I have never understood what prompted the gay couple to ask for service from the baker in the first place. Surely they must have known beforehand the religious views of that baker and they, therefore, should have gone to another baker.
10
I will embellish on Call Me Al's NYT Pick comment. Suppose a Muslim or Jewish or Hindu person came into that bake shop and demanded a religiously specific cake, and the Christian baker refused, saying baking such a cake violated his religious beliefs. Whose religious beliefs carry? Let's go political to a hooded Klansman demanding a black baker bake a cake shaped like a noose. Or a Jewish baker produce a swastika. Or maybe a guy carries an AR-15 (no magazine, slung over his back in a state where open carry is legal, so it is not brandishing) into a bakery and demands a cake in the shape of a gun, without caring that the baker's son was recently shot in a robbery. Have any of these hit your hot buttons? Legally these may be different but from a human relations perspective they are the same.One party demands of another, not asks, under dubious color of law, to do something deeply offensive to the other's principles, when there are many other choices that the first party could make. People need the right to say No as well as Yes, and "narrowly" as the liberal media is spinning this decision, it is important and overdue to reign back in-your-face behavior by various activists, whatever their stripe, especially when their stripe is today's media favorite.
7
It is a shame, that someone has to revert to his religious beliefs and spend a fortune doing so lining only the pockets of lawyers and taking up time of the Supreme Court to defend his right to serve whoever he wants to.
His shop, his choice. Period.
Btw, as I recall, this 'couple' specifically sought out this bakery hoping to be denied service, so they can earn some time in the media limelight.
If it was only about getting a cake, I'm sure,they would have found someone else, gay or straight to satisfy their needs.
6
And what do you think this decision (at 7-2) will mean to the Administration's travel ban? The majority's reliance on outside comments showing bias as justification suggests that a majority might well think the same of Trump's rants and bigoted tweets. Swords are always two-sided.
2
In my view, this is not a legal, but moral issue. Shame on the baker, for being a judgmental hypocrite. That being said, if I were the couple soon-to-be-married, I would want it to be a happy event, and take my business elsewhere. The quandary is, had they done such, they allow other bullies to behave in the same manner. Now, the Supreme Court has decided it is okay to be a bully.
4
What if marriage wasn’t a religious ceremony, but a legal state.
There wasn’t any religious connotation to this couple being married. It was a celebration for entering a contract, not a sacrament.
3
The reasoning of the majority including Kennedy i faulty, even for a non-lawyer lke me (I do have a Ph.. in engineering). Based on their logic, which religion do you accept as valod? If Mormon's religion approvesmore than one wife, should any government ban it? If a building landlord bis against ywo men or two women or one man and two women wants to rent an apartment (note "Three IS Company") can he reject renting it to them based upon his personal religious beliefs of some Guru in Himalayas? What religious beliefs does this supreme court acccepts a valid and on what basis? Isn't that government intervention on my right to believe what I want?
4
This case is a good example of why Jordan Peterson has had such a meteoric rise!
2
The baker accepts the convenience and protection of public services paid for by local and federal taxes. He runs a commercial establishment in the USA. He has no right to discriminate against anyone. Period. The court's waffle on the subject of due process denied, because the state commission declined to tread softly on the issue of the bakers 'sincerely held religious beliefs, was a wink and a nod to all the haters and bigots in our land. We aren't allowed to maim and kill people because we declare ourselves members of a sect. We don't burn women at the stake in this century.
7
A 7-2 ruling is a "narrow decision"? Huh?
9
Ginsburg and Sotomayor vote against personal liberty in favor of state control every time.. so 7-2 is almost defacto unanimous.
1
Narrow refers to the scope of the legal ruling (narrowly applied to the case at hand versus widely applicable to many instances in society), narrow does not refer to the number of justices siding one way or another.
6
Kind of like the NYT's headline declaring a "Landslide" when NYC Mayor De Blasi won with 27% of people voting.
2
The decision was very specific to this case. Justice K saw a way out to keep first amendment and same sex marriage in conversation. However, how this decision will be played out is under religious principles that will deny services. We’ll see the consequences pretty soon.
3
What I think those who call this decision narrow don't see is that it's going to lead to wide challenges to Colorado Civil Rights Division cases that have already been decided, to challenges to decisions in other states where the commissioner or other adjudicator has chosen to mouth off, and since Judge Watson tells us courts can consider earlier statements, the decision of any commissioner who has ever chosen to make anti-religious comments, ever, is going to be challenged. Not only does this harm the left in that they lost a case they really, really cared about, but a lot of these "commissioners" are going to be publicly shamed as it turns out that they made statements about Christians, or Jews, or whites, or men, or straight people that don't look very good in print.
5
The significance of Kennedy's words are being drowned out in the debate. Most significantly, Kennedy signaled that hostility towards religious adherents will not be tolerated. Laws must be applied in a manner *neutral* to religion. This creates a higher bar for challengers of religious adherence. As it should.
1
Good conclusion, SCOTUS, with more than the “narrow” margin this article’s title connotes (I wonder if this is not a great example of journalistic bias?).
What remains unmentioned in the article is that Mr. Philips still offered to sell his products to his gay customers—he was still willing to serve them. He was just declining his personalized services based on thoughtful and respectful disagreement.
12
By NARROW, the NYT article is NOT saying that the case NARROWLY DECIDED between the judges such as the common 5-4 decisions we see in these political and cultural cases. It says that the decision WAS NARROWLY TAILORED to the facts of this case and therefore will not broadly applicable to other cases involving religious objections to providing services to gay individuals.
5
How is a 7-2 vote a "narrow decision"???
3
Copied from the above reply:
By NARROW, the NYT article is NOT saying that the case NARROWLY DECIDED between the judges such as the common 5-4 decisions we see in these political and cultural cases. It says that the decision WAS NARROWLY TAILORED to the facts of this case and therefore will not broadly applicable to other cases involving religious objections to providing services to gay individuals.
3
First, I agree with one of the other posters. The state licenses businesses and in return those entities certain privileges and protections. If you are a licensed business, you must operate under the laws of the state. Your religious affiliation has nothing to do with the matter.
Second, I am a 56 year old gay man. I have amazingly enough seen great progress in the area of gay rights. But I also believe there is simmering discontent in parts of the populace. I have told my gay friends that I believe these people are going to come after us and I think this is one of the first steps because this ruling will be seen as a complete victory not as a ruling on a very narrow basis or question.
14
Again, religion is used as a weapon and in this case, wins a bigoted and homophobic victory.
But, Conservatives will never win this battle. Using religion as a weapon or an excuse is discrimination and can't be tolerated in any form.
Everyone is equal and everyone deserves the same measure of respect and dignity.
12
And once again, someone might have been compelled to write or draw something that they did not believe in. There is a difference between being compelled to sell something (a cake) which the baker was willing to do, and being compelled to draw images and write words on that cake (which the baker was unwilling to do). The court was unwilling to decide between these two rights, so it punted and impeached the process of the lower court. It was a copout.
1
Doubtful that Evangelicals are Christians. As for the baker being a bad businessman, I suspect that in Evangelical-rich Colorado he’s been doing just fine.
5
I would have thought that deeply and sincerely held Christian values would have dictated that this man bake and sell the cake (or even give it away!) so the cake could be used to shine the light of Jesus' love, compassion, and forgiveness as a witness to these, apparently, non-believing customers.
9
Christians baking a cake for a gay couple would be to encourage the sin.. why would a Christian encourage others to sin? How would giving or selling this cake be an act of love? Where actually, by refusing to bake the cake is the actual act of love, causing the gay couple to self reflect, not by nurturing the sin but by rebuking the sin.. and that is how it's done. Well done bakers!!*applause*
1
But don’t you remember Jesus refusing to feed some in the multitude because he disagreed with their personal life choices? Oh wait, that didn’t happen because Jesus wasn’t a bigot like some of his so-called followers.
3
Your headline says “narrow decision”excuse me it was 7-2 and that’s NOT a narrow decision!
11
From a previous comment:
By NARROW, the NYT article is NOT saying that the case NARROWLY DECIDED between the judges such as the common 5-4 decisions we see in these political and cultural cases. It says that the decision WAS NARROWLY TAILORED to the facts of this case and therefore will not broadly applicable to other cases involving religious objections to providing services to gay individuals.
2
It looks like Justice Kennedy found a way to have his cake and eat it too.
10
I’m curious to see the strength of this mans faith.
Certainly the Bible condemns men sleeping with men, but it also says that God hates divorce.
If God hates divorce, I can’t imagine any pious believer would ever bake goods for any person who has been divorced.
Let’s see who Christian baker decides to serve in the future as clients. If he ever serves a divorcee, I say reverse the decision that benefitted him, or try him for perjury.
And for the persecuted victimized Christian, this isn’t antiChristian, it’s anti-hypocrite.
9
Interesting...the S-Court didn't side with the baker on the merits of his case but because a majority suspected bias by a lower court. But that little nuance will surely get lost in the brouhaha sure to follow.
8
A clear message was sent: Decisions have to be "neutral" to religion. This is a very important decision in that regard.
1
This decision may be correct in a narrow legalistic sense of the word but it’s cultural repercussions are uniformly negative. It validates the perverse and narrow-minded interpretation of Christianity which is so remote from its historical roots that evangelical fundamentalism should, by now, be called a different name. When a religion finds itself embroiled in a debate over cakes and bathrooms instead of theodicy and free will, this religion is finished. I have no respect whatsoever for American “Christians”. And the more they squeal demanding respect from the “elites’, the more they will be mocked and pushed to the margins. Once you produce a St. Thomas Acquinas or even a C. S. Lewis, get back to me. Meanwhile, enjoy your gay-free cakes which, judging by the waistlines of some of my evangelical relatives, are not good for your health either.
8
The Court punted.
Businesses operate with a government permit, license, etc., and are subject to government laws, regulations, etc. Masterpiece violated the state's sexual-orientation, anti-discrimination law. The gay couple were denied their Equal Protection rights.
7
A business licensing scheme can override the First Amendment? Really?
3
The First Amendment can override the Equal Protection Clause. Really?
1
According to 7 of 9 - yes.
Religion without tolerance (as the baker showed) is not true religion.
6
Boycott the store so he has to close.
8
This case is six years old, and though you deem yourself virtuous, still there are cakes and all. He's doing better than ever. Remember, Clinton narrowly won Colorado, and he's not in Denver or Boulder.
6
Or give it business to show solidarity. There are plenty of Americans who respect the baker's choice, even while holding differing beliefs.
4
Reminds me of the Chick-fil-a boycott organized by the LGBT community a few years ago. It was the single biggest sales day in company history. I suspect this guy's cakes will be selling like.... well... hot cakes!
1
7 to 2 is hardly a "narrow" decision.
7
What about the intolerance of a gay couple who chose to drive 100 miles to go to a baker they knew would not give them what they wanted, just to set up this lawsuit?
14
The title of the article indicates that the SC's decision was "narrow," but it was not by any means. The SC decided 7-2 in favor of baker, that is by no means "narrow." A narrow decision would be 5-4.
At any rate, this decision is a tremendous victory for the freedom of speech, the freedom of religion, the freedom of association and, in no way, is a setback for LGBT rights. The LGBT are people, just anyone else, should be treated as such, and that means participating in a broader society in which people make choices in their best interests.
In this case, a baker chose not to bake a cake for an LGBT couple because it meant acting in his opposition to his religious beliefs, going against the pact he made with God. So in a way, this decision by the SC validated that God's law is higher than man's law, as it should be.
8
This is one of those cases in which both sides are wrong. The claim of a civil rights violation is wrong, because Mr. Phillips never refused service to his customers, and the basis of his argument was not his customers' sexual identity, but the nature of the event he was asked to cater. Mr. Phillips is wrong because he is exaggerating the degree to which making a cake makes him a participant in the wedding.
I think he could have reasonably made a cake for them without any specific symbols contrary to his beliefs and given it to them. Because he is paid, once he exchanges the cake, it belongs to his customers to use however they wish. Catering by itself does not imply endorsement of the union.
I'm not sure you are familiar with the facts of the case. Mr. Phillips is renowned for putting the faces of the happy couple in icing on his cakes. They asked him to do that, he refused and offered to sell them any standard cake on the shelf. They declined.
5
The Supreme Court did not serve us well by giving us a narrow ruling that resolves nothing.
2
The left is generally hostile to Christianity so it was no surprise that that Civil Rights Commission would show such obvious bias. If Justice Kennedy can recognize good faith religious beliefs, isn't it time for the left to start doing the same?
9
Since when is a 7-2 decision considered a narrow decision??
9
I just want businesses and schools etc who deny objectivity in the public space to be given second class licenses and clearly available information on what their limitations are—doctors, pharmacies, teachers, people with clean-food certificates from the health department. If you receive an authorization from the state to operate and you end up denying objective services , i want to see it second class.
2
The reality is that this is an example of how religion can ostracize particular groups of individuals. This decision simply gives the freedom for people to utilize religion as an excuse to continue to alienate others.
1
Unfortunately, the Court here acted like a trial court instead of the ultimate arbiter of the law in the USA. I agree with Justice Ginsberg in that a few stray remarks were not enough to justify a ruling in Phillips's favor. Now the bigots will feel emboldened to treat gays disparagingly because they won't read the entirety of the Court's opinion and assimilate its nuances.
2
So what happens if a same-sex couple comes to Jack Phillips bake shop *today* asking for a cake? If Phillips refuses to make a cake for them, and they sue, and the commissioners in this new case (post-Obergefell) are neutral and respectful of Phillips' religious views, but still come out the same way -- finding that free exercise of religion does not give a baker permission to flout Colorado's anti-discrimination law -- what would the Supreme Court decide? I hope it would argue the way RBG ruled at the end of her dissent -- namely, that "sensible application of CADA [Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act] to a refusal to sell any wedding cake to a gay couple" should result in a ruling for the gay couple, whose dignity and worth were clearly diminished when the owner of the bake shop told them he would not make them a cake for their wedding.
4
Won’t happen. The left bullied him into ceasing the baking of his specialty cakes for everyone.
3
Imagine another scene. A same-sex couple runs a bakery and some dad comes to order a cake to celebrate that his son has been successfully cured from his homosexuality by some quack preacher. Would they be justified to refuse?
In my opinion we should draw a distinction between small and large businesses. Large businesses are like utilities. They should serve everyone on everything. But small businesses are extensions of someone's personality and there should be some freedom in following one's preferences and beliefs.
9
A simple courteous "I'm sorry gentleman, though I understand the depth and sincerity of your love for each other, I cannot contribute meaningfully to your celebration on religious grounds. Baker Atheist Smith next door does beautiful work and would be happy to do it for you. He sends me many of his clients who who specifically desire religious artwork on their cakes. We've had this arrangement for years. I wish you a happy wedding and life together. Feel free to come back for delicious and artful birthday cakes in the future. Mazal Tov." ...... would also probably have been rejected by the plaintiff because they were planted there to bring this baker down at all costs. Bravo on the SCOTUS for a reasoned decision.
13
It is a tough one when two protected rights are in conflict. The gay couple is gay. That is their right and they can't change that. Their marriage license makes their union legal. The baker is a conservative Christian by choice. He holds a business license that should obligate him to follow the law. He should not be able to legally discriminate. Then again, why would the couple want to do business with him? This case was, in the end, about the behavior of one commission official, not any merit. One last thought: Christians who say they are being persecuted by civil rights laws need to wake up and see how the real world works. Religion is a personal choice.
1
How does being gay topple the faith of another person? What you're saying is a gay person has more rights than a person of faith.. but this is no different than saying 'Hitler is right for murdering Jews' - simply because you are prioritizing a persons beliefs over another's aggressively. This is where respect comes into play - to simply disagree with a person and each go their own way.. not to become aggressive and attempt to trample another's space because you don't agree with their livelihood!
Gay people have experienced this for a very long time, this overstepping by anti-gay aggressive people, but not so much anymore.. but ironically, now 'they' are attempting to aggressively overstep on heterosexual people.. I believe many aggressive gay people need to step back and observe history, perhaps even get involved in sensitivity training towards heterosexuals.
2
The interesting thing when discussing Christian faith and homosexuality is that Jesus, who in my humble opinion should be the trendsetter, as it were, does not once himself mention or discuss homosexuality in the Bible. Though we find anti-gay passages elsewhere in the Bible, they are to no little extent from Paul. And who is then Paul to dictate what is God's and Jesus' opinion? Paul is not in the same league as Jesus and sometimes even contradicts him. Thus we have to choose whether to be Christians or Paulists.
And I think we should not be estranged to the possibility of concluding that the entire anti-gay movement was to a large extent based on the local culture of the Middle East, which, as we know, to this day has problems with homosexuality (as opposed to many other cultures where it may usually only merit a certain degree of curiosity). And thus we Christians have let us be manipulated into persecution and hostility towards fellow human beings, which many keep passing on to their own children. Not very Christian, is it?
4
The Word / Bible is clear about homosexuality, and Christ is GOD, He is the Word made flesh, the author of the Bible.
Had you believed that Christ is GOD, you would not have these doubts or questions.
2
The only “businesses run on religious principles” are churches.
Bakeries, gas stations, diners, arts & craft suppliers, hospitals etc. must serve all paying customers.
Those institutions actually run by religious groups need to stop cramming their dogma into their business decision (e.g. employee health insurance) ...or they could just restrict their activity to preaching.
I’m so sick of the religious right.
6
I think the question here is that the baker probably felt that they were not asking only for a cake. They were asking also for an approval from him. And he was not ready to do that for reasons whose respectfulness no civil society can deny (religious is an important part of many people's life).
And, if they were really looking for an approval on his part (which I can't know, but it's possible of it could be possible in other future cases), that would be, I think, very unfair.
9
That this case was brought to the Supreme Court and required a decision is a sad commentary on our culture and a great example of the limits of the law. This confrontation of firmly held beliefs could easily be rectified by a respectful, yet courteous, decision to pursue an alternative. The baker could have suggested another shop, the couple could have decided to go elsewhere. Instead, it is made into a publicized example of culture wars in the highest court in the land. Legal solutions are limited in that the law can only tell what is permissible (or not). In this sense justice is blind to both right and wrong. Law cannot and never will substitute for genuine care and respectful interactions.
9
WWJD? Bake the cake and bless the union of two people who love each other!
8
It is amazing that all these people are experts on Jesus and Christianity when it is very clear they have avoided religion so completely you'd think God had an order of protection against them.
4
Yes, Here. When they aren't ridiculing His walking on water, they are trotting Him out to use as a cudgel. Theirs is a perverse relationship with religion.
2
I wonder what the Supreme Court's ruling would have been if a few key works in this story had been changed. For example if Jew or African American had replaced Gay and Homosexual.
What would SCOTUS have done if the Baker refused to make a cake for a black couple because his religious beliefs state that Africans are, let's say, inferior and prone to breaking God's commandments against fornication, theft, murder, etc?
Despite what the religious right says, the United States has always been and remains a secular state. The Constitution says so.
9
There is no sincerely held book of religious principles that forbid Jews from marrying!!! The bible is the guidebook for millions of people whether you like it or not. Our country protects the right to follow that book if so desired. Its called " reasonable accommodation" and its been part of constitutional legal theory for generations.
4
Sincere religious beliefs put dog collars on African slaves and the lash to their backs. Sincere religious beliefs made strange fruit of southern trees. I will accept sincere religious beliefs today from those who would, like the abolitionists of old, work fervently against the sencerity of their bigoted brethren.
13
And if the baker refused to bake a cake for a Muslim couple because he dislikes that religion? Or for Jews? Or Catholics? How about Latinos, or blacks?
You can bet that a few unsupportive remarks by a Colorado human rights commissioner or two would have been treated as insignificant. The court's reasoning was a fig leaf for tolerating Christianity-based, anti-gay bigotry.
9
The issue wasn't "dislike".
4
Perhaps It was an act of intolerance on the part of both sides but sometimes reasonable people must just let it go. There was no legal gain to be made for the aggrieved customers that I can see that could not be characterized as low grade vengeance resulting from high grade hubris.
10
Justice Kennedy objected to the fact that the Civil Rights Commission of Colorado has shown a "clear and impermissible hostility" to the religious believes of the baker. What the commission has wrote in their decision is that religion has been used to justify slavery and the Holocaust. I guest that Justice Kennedy can not handle the truth about the racism and bigotry of religion.
8
My Christian and also secular view is that it’s wrong and sad that this professional baker would not bake a cake for these two children of God. Just my view.
That said, if I was a baker and two avowed White Supremacists entered my bakery and wanted me to bake them a cake in the blatant shape of, say, a swastika, I’m pretty sure I would refuse.
Question. How does that fit constitutionally? And is my baker alter ego a hypocrite?
8
Yes, your baker alter ego is. If you have to bake a cake for every customer you have to bake a cake for every customer.
I tend to believe any business can turn away a customer for any reason. Just like I believe that customers can avoid a business if they don’t like the way it operates.
5
Why is the title "narrow decision" when it was 7-2? I am not making a commentary on the decision or whether I agree or not, I am just trying to understand the NYT editor's way of framing this.
8
It was narrow in scope. In other words, the court was deciding on whether the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was biased, not on whether a business can discriminate against whomever they feel isn’t worthy in their gods eyes.
I was confused too at first. It’s a “narrow decision” because the Justices want their ruling applied narrowly (that it was the lower court that messed up), not because it was a narrow vote. That’s why they all keep saying how much they support gay rights.
2
It is not narrow because of the majority, it is narrow because of the holding. The Decision only applies to the baker's situation and does not address the wider topic of First Amendment rights.
1
I get over how unchristian it is not to embrace your fellow citizen. Religion should not be in the business of judging other people. Jesus said take the bread...what if he had said take this cake?
Typo... “I CAN’t get over...”
This is outrageous! This month is known as pride month and we should be able to celebrate the effort people have gone through to make this society more tolerant and accepting yet seeing this makes me feel like we have come so far but got so far to go.
1
Why the emphasis on Kennedy and his "swing vote?"
The decision was 7-2, not 5-4. Even if Kennedy and one other Justice had changed sides, the baker still would have won.
5
The swing vote before deciding that this case should be dealt at the SC level. They could have sent it back down to a lower court again.
This is going to sound trite and offensive, but it's neither. Think about it before you react.
Bake your own cake.
6
how about: In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Didn't Turn His Back On God
4
The simple fact is that they picked the wrong battle to fight.
To be clear, I am sympathetic to those who have endure discriminations and the gay community in particular. However, you pick your fight. "My right trumps your right" at the individual level is always a losing proposition.
Sadly, it is doubtful the involved parties have learned the lesson. Instead, they allow their own right driving a wedge among and allow the extremists and agitators to seize control.
6
I'm gay, didn't come out until I was 39, and until then lived a life of depression, isolation, and suicidal tendencies. When I was growing up, being gay was one of the worst things one could possibly be, and I internalized all of that. I hope that those who use their religion to denigrate LGBTQ people understand that their expression of their beliefs, no matter how "sincerely held," contributes significantly to the alarmingly high rate of suicide among LGBTQ youth.
And let's not lose sight of the bigger picture. Much -- though not all -- of organized religion has demonized LGBTQ people since time immemorial. The LGBTQ rights movement is, by comparison, very young. The religiously-motivated bigots brought the fight to us. They can't complain when we fight back.
9
"The religiously-motivated bigots brought the fight to us. They can't complain when we fight back." Really? no religious group "brought the fight. The LGBTQ agenda fights against God and it is God Himself who will prevails. And I wouldn't want to be on the wrong side of God of Heavens and Earth so gird your loins, my friend. You haven't seen anything yet.
The article and the comments leaves me with some questions:
Did the court make a distinction between baking and decorating the cake? If so, is the baking or the decorating of the cake considered the art form? Did the baker refuse to bake the couple a cake, or refuse to decorate one that he was still willing to bake? Finally, did he offer to sell them a generic cake from his retail pastry case for them to take elsewhere to be decorated with whatever design or message they wanted, or did he refuse them even that? Can someone with more knowledge of the legalities of the case chime in?
1
From what I read on CNN, the baker offered other bakery products, and also refuses to DECORATE cakes for Halloween. This seems to me to be an important angle that reporters are leaving out. One presumes that shop isn't the only place that bakes wedding cakes in all of Colorado, so it was the special decorating skills being sought. Honestly, it starts to sound like the gay couple purposely sought this battle out.
How would they feel if they were, say, graphic designers and a virulent homophobe insisted they design a poster denouncing gays? After all, they would be a commercial Enterprise, required to sell to anyone. Food for thought.
9
The baker offered a to sell them any other cake or cupcakes he had, just not a wedding cake. He wasn't showing bias against them as a gay couple. he just refused to give his support for gay marriage by having one of his creations in the middle of their celebration.
1
I guess this means it's also okay for me to refuse to serve bigots. Bigotry is in conflict with my sincerely held religious beliefs. Should I post a sign that I refuse to serve fundamentalist Christians?
20
Religious freedom is not supposed to be just for certain Christian denominations, but for all faiths.
Get ready for Catholic checkout operators refusing to swipe condoms in supermarkets, Hindu checkout operators refusing to swipe beef, Jewish checkout operators refusing to swipe bacon, Muslim checkout operators refusing to swipe alcohol or pork or music CD’s or to serve unveiled women or women unaccompanied by their husbands and so on. Employers will be powerless to fire people who refuse to do the job they’re paid to.
11
Some already refuse to scan wine. I wouldnt be surprised to see the other situations...
The ruling objected to some commissioners’ observations during their hearing of the Phillips case that religion had been adduced in “defenses of slavery and the Holocaust,” as holding his beliefs up to be “despicable”. That’s flat wrong. Religion WAS used in defences of slavery and the Holocaust, and continues to be. The commissioners’ statements were not showing hostility to Phillips or his particular religious beliefs by merely pointing to what is recorded historical fact.
8
The Holocaust was a racial genocide, not a religious one. Nazis considered Jews to be a race, not a religion, and happily killed Jewish converts to Christianity. If you demand historical av]ccuracy from others, show it yourself.
6
As a disclaimer, I am not gay and I am a devout Catholic. Yet, this whole case seems wrong to me and the decision by the Supreme Court even worse.
When I learned in the news about this case many months ago, I wondered why anybody would want to buy a product where he or she is not welcome. I thought the best this couple could have done was to refuse their patronage. If enough people refused to buy cakes from this establishment, I bet their religious convictions would have been tested very fast. But I regress....
The part that truly bothers me is how some people use religion to justify bad acts. The most important Christian teaching is to "Love your neighbor as your love yourselve". It is all encompassing. It does not say oh yeah... it is ok to exclude gays or blacks or disabled or jews or any other group.... ok, ok i sidetracked again...
Finally I asked myself, Does a business have religious believes? At the end of the day, it seems to me that this sets a terrible precedent. For example, I believe some Mormones used to believe that non-whites were impure. Does that mean, it would have been Ok for a Mormon establishment not to serve Non-Whites? The answer before today was not.....
8
What will happen when a business refuses to serve interracial couples, all gays, transsexuals, Muslims, Jews, women, or anyone else on the basis of sincerely held “religious” beliefs. It’s very similar to the Court’s ruling in birth control cases. First it was a narrowly constructed ruling, then it was that any business could refuse to provide insurance for birth control for only the vaguest of “religious” beliefs. It’s no longer necessary to even fill out a form, you can just eliminate birth control coverage and, if asked, say it’s for religious reasons. It can’t be challenged.
9
I'm glad for the baker. He has rights just like they have the right to shop elsewhere.
11
Bigotry is again fully and explicitly legalized. This will be a stain on our nation for the next hundred years.
6
I think the Supreme Court got the decision right in this specific case for a reason I haven't heard mentioned: The baker was asked to make the cake was made in 2012, two years before same-sex marriage was legal in Colorado. So he certainly had the right to refuse to act in support of a then-illegal relationship, even if that was not his conscious motive. To say that he had to act in accordance with a law later passed would seem to be an ex post facto requirement, in violation of the Constitution.
Of course that reasoning would not apply today, nor does it makes Mr. Phillips' actions at the time honorable.
2
You’re confusing something that was not, at the time, legally recognised with something that was actually against the law. There have been same-sex unions with gay and lesbian partners creating and building their own families for absolutely ages. They just had to fight for those unions to be recognised and for their rights to be acknowledged and protected under the law.
1
Though this decision is very narrow, let this be a touch stone. Let this be a flame of revival ! God will prevail !
3
7 to 2 doesn't seem narrow to me.
1
Some people are required to stone those who stray from their group's religious laws. Where do we draw the line in determining when one's actions, particularly those that directly or indirectly harm others, are no longer defensible under religious freedom?
5
If I am not mistaken, the decision 7:2 is not a narrow decision as wrongly mentioned in the headline. In soccer, it is a washout. Regardless of one's position and leaning, one should perhaps lean towards accuracy when numbers are concerned.
6
Or maybe you should read the decision which was based on the state’s handling of the case and the defendant rather than the broader scope of constitutional rights. It is not a decision that it meant to impact the core argument going forward which has yet to be decided. The decision was very clear that this relates specifically to the process of the state’s case. It’s not just about numbers.
4
Narrow decision means in the scope of the details not the vote count. It has a very narrow focus and not the broad implication being stated by some posting. It’s legal details. Reread it carefully.
2
You are quite mistaken. Narrow refers to the scope of the decision, not the vote count.
3
The baker is discriminating against gay people using the guise of theology. In other words he's using religion to cover his homophobia, and the right-wing Supreme Court allowed a precedent to be set which is irrational and illogical. Either you have separation of church and state or you don't. The US is NOT a theocracy. No one should have the right to impose their religious beliefs on others and to use their theology as way to violate the 14th Amendment.
9
"The baker is discriminating against gay people using the guise of theology. "
Our framers were very smart. They knew exactly how religion was perceived and built in protections for it.
Narrow decision? It was 7-2.
7
Narrow meaning the scope, not the number of votes on each side.
9
Thank you for clarifying! I couldn’t believe the post!! Hahahaha
Now my reply will be edited out by a techie.
1
Well bully for the baker. Unfortunately for the rest of his state, Colorado sent an unmistakeable message, gays need not have their weddings catered in Colorado. A billion dollar industry of pure fabulousness gone. Come to California. We have better pastries and all are welcome!
23
I'm starting a new religion, and at my place of business I will refuse to serve bigots, evangelical Christians, judgmental people and sex offenders. ID's will be checked at the door.
18
Unfortunately, religious beliefs have been the basis for persecution, wars and hatred throughout the centuries. The Colorado Commissioner who conveyed his feelings wasn’t off base. What if the baker or any other business entity refuses to bake a cake for someone because he doesn’t like their religious affiliation or their skin color? History should always be a life lesson. At the start of the Holocaust bakeries in Europe weren’t allowed to sell bread to Jews. This is a dangerous door being opened by the Supreme Court.
14
Notice that the two Justices who got it right are women.
19
Take a moment to consider: A small baker, a baker, a gay couple asking for a cake. Jesus Christ is browsing in the store and overhears the merchant denying service to the couple.
Would he remain silent? If not, what would he say? I think we all know the answer to that one.
10
I think we all think we know the answer but there are two answers, each depending on how you think.
2
It wasn't narrow, the vote was a landslide 7-2. Private business have the right to serve or refuse any business they please, no matter who is asking, full stop. This couple went all the way to Colorado from MA just to attack this baker and stir up controversy. Disgusting, sad people targeting an innocent man for politics.
10
Several people have made this comment. The narrowness here is about the narrow constraints based on the facts of the case, and not about vote count. It is an easy thing to misunderstand if the article is just skimmed over, or if one is looking for superficial confirmation. Unfortunate language aside, since people are mentioning the vote count, the seven vote majority is arguably one vote too high.
4
Wrong and wrong! The scope of this decision is very narrow, i.e. no precedent was set and will not apply in future cases. And businesses cannot discriminate against a class of people. Otherwise we could go back to the days of white and colored facilities.
1
"Let them eat [some other] cake." Unbelievable.
2
This country deserves the government of its choice. How backward this country is becoming. The Taliban must be amazed and delighted as this ruling is very much how they would have ruled.
The SCOTUS should not have taken on a case that was going to be decided based on technicalities. The vast majority of people will view this decision as a win for those that want to use religion as a basis to discriminate. It shouldn't matter how sincere any body's beliefs are, they shouldn't be able to pick and choose who they offer goods and services to. A well functioning and tolerant society allows everyone the right to practice their own religion while at the same time protecting individuals from being unnessecarily subjected to another person's religious beliefs.
15
You are quite right, the Trump base of WHITE men in BLUE collars with RED necks will use this at every turn to refuse a color they don't like, another crazy cult like theirs they don't like and now sexual preferences. It is now an open door to discriminate all because of a religious cult(they all are). The Tripoli Act of 1797 was signed by congress and clearly stated that the US was not a Christian Republic and in no way was founded on religious
beliefs and yet here we are. You can't fix stupid.
2
There was discrimination. It was by the Civl Rights Commission against the bakers. That merits deliberation and sends a message as well.
3
I just read the decision. It accepts the baker's contention that his refusal to make the cake was a First Amendment “exercise” of his religion. At the same time, it acknowledges that Colorado's current anti-discrimination law is fair and Constitutional despite its potential sometimes to impinge on free exercise. It says, "the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor..." And it concludes, "[t]hat requirement...was not met here.”
The “hostility” was this unfortunate syntax by a Commissioner who was charged with determining whether the baker had violated Colorado's law: "[R]eligion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history….[T]o me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.”
This is arguably a condemnation of the MISuse of religion, not of religion itself.
The court did not find fault with the Commission's legal rationaIe or with the law itself, Rather, the Court impeded the state's ability to apply that law seemingly on the basis of a questionable interpretation of a Commissioner’s statement.
That's a lot of import to give to a Colorado commissioner's remark, at a time when remarks by the President himself are officially designated as not having face value.
13
I am with Ginsburg in her dissent. The baker had not even discussed or been asked to write a message - this was discrimination from the git-go. The baker by his own words believed he was being asked to participate in wrong-doing. I know the court said their opinion was narrow but just watch what happens. I believe an officiant marrying the couple "would be considered as having "participated" but the baker? The cake was not for a wedding which was to be held in another state but for a reception in CO. This was one twisted beligerant baker who used his version of what he thought the Bible said as an excuse to snub the gay couple.
16
Unless the baker is using communion wafers as part of the cake, or sprinkling holy water into the recipe, religion isn’t involved. He wasn’t asked to officiate, be a guest or even share a slice, he was just asked to bake the thing. And I highly doubt that it would have featured 3D cowboys in chaps, or even a controversial billboard!!! Furthermore, cakes MIGHT be considered a temporary piece of art, but they’re also unsigned, anonymous. It was simply a cake for a party he wasn’t invited to!
2
I understand it is a 'narrow' decision and so forth but on that point I could not care less. What matters is that the baker's First Amendment rights were properly upheld. The First Amendment is graphically clear - 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. ' Colorado forgot the latter part of the establishment clause. If bar owners in NY can force Trump supporters wearing MAGA hats to leave then certainly this gentleman has the right to refuse to bake the cake in defense of his First Amendment rights.
I expect many progressives are in a hot lather over this ruling and are accordingly celebrating that it is "narrow". But that still misses the broader point. Principles were upheld here and not by a narrow 5:4 majority. Good job SCOTUS.
8
The numbers on each side aren’t what determines a narrow ruling. It’s considered narrow if the principles can’t be freely applied to any and every case that come down the pike. In this case, solely because there was question if the lower courts had violated the defendant’s religious rights, the decision went to him, BUT, no future precedent was set, so this was a narrow decision, and not a landmark.
2
Let them eat cake. But I don’t have to bake it for them if I don’t want to.
A victory for common sense
8
I just want to know what will happen when I open my Gays Only Cake Shop. Let me guess.
8
I don’t think that’s what is meant by narrow. At 7-2 you are correct that the court was not much divided. I think the decision is described as narrow in regard to its setting of precedent, in that the decision was based upon the finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had been shown to be hostile to religion. If future cases don’t include such bias, they won’t get much support from this decision. Hence “narrow”. I think.
7
A quibble with the broader reasoning of two members of the Court:
"Justice Thomas, joined by Justice Gorsuch, said he would have ruled in favor of Mr. Phillips on free speech grounds. Mr. Phillips’s cakes are artistic expression worthy of First Amendment protection, Justice Thomas wrote, and requiring him to endorse marriages at odds with his faith violated his constitutional rights.”
Here’s the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; OR ABRIDGING THE FREEDOM OF SPEECH, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
I capitalized the applicable words. If the cake is expression, doesn’t the language mean that he can’t be prevented from baking one? This situation was the opposite and, it seems, not covered by the First Amendment’s freedom-of-speech provision.
2
unfortunately our supreme court ruled that freedom of religion, in this case, means
the right of the baker to reject gay marriage on religious grounds,
and to impose that belief on his customers.
i agree with you.
the perception of some justices @ freedom of religion is just as twisted and paranoid as that of the baker.
1
precedent established long ago the freedom from abridgement of speech includes freedom from compelled speech.
4
Preparing a special order cake as requested by the gay couple is not ‘compelled speech’ of the buyer!
It is as per customer request and therefore representative of the gay couple’s speech.
The perception that creating this cake would be offering the religious endorsement of the baker for gay marriage is therefore totally twisted!!!
and only reflects the intolerance and bigotry of those who follow this thinking.
As an atheist, coloradan, and supporter of gay rights, I'm pleased with the conclusion of the courts. My freedom of/from religion only exists so long as the law supports it as a fundamental right. Just like we should protest against the law forcing me to believe/partake in a specific religious tenant, so too should we defend our fellow Americans' rights to believe and live as they see fit.
My rights are not greater than those of my neighbor and we must learn to live along side one another despite our differences.
14
Must an artist who accepts a public benefit, like incorporation, or who buys raw materials in interstate commerce, sublimate so much of his 1st amendment rights of free speech and free exercise as is necessary to make good on the obligation to serve all comers that inheres in accepting these public benefits?
The first amendment guarantees Mr. Phillip's free Exercise in the sense he may not be compelled to marry a man. Nor may he be forced to speak as an individual in favor of a marriage of men. The amendment does not assure him he can be a baker in trade with the public.
2
By that same rationale I should be able to walk into a Christian bookstore and expect them to order me a book on Buddhism.
I'd rather know a proprietors stance and choose not to do business with them vs. using the law to conceal their beliefs and unknowingly support them.
Commerce is full of examples of discrimination, otherwise known as exclusivity. Does this mean all such businesses should cease?
1
Stupid decision. It now opens the door for the Balkanization of American business.
How? It’s simple.
Imagine you are driving somewhere in the Southwest. A long and hot road lay ahead of you. You are nearly out of gas. Thankfully, you see a gas station in the distance. You pull over, approach the window to pay and find yourself asked to fill out a questionnaire regarding your religious beliefs, otherwise there is no sale of gas to you. You fill it out and mention your catholic faith... only to discover that they only serve atheists. Too bad. Welcome to your new America.
6
Hi. As a Massachusetts cake maker who hates making cakes for those who believe in---what was it exactly that was so very important that was something I did not like because of my belief in some something that did not, in any way, exist in a provable way--I am for the taking away of the cake from the people who did believe in a cake topping and icing that disagreed with my.
2
A narrow decision? What is so narrow about a seven to two vote? Should that be more accurately described as broad? Isn't that a 77 percent vote in favor of the baker?
8
The IMPLICATIONS of f the decision are narrow, not the vote!
5
Why did two of the four progressive justices decide for the baker? The vote was 7 to 2. Really not even close.
My guess is that they really don't like it when government commissions appear to be biased. Nothing wrong with that.
Soon, hopefully, we will get a case that is not tainted this way. Then we will see at least the 4 progressive judges voting together. And maybe even more.
3
Considering that a significant factor influencing this decision was the animus against religion expressed by one of the members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, I await the decision of the Court in the matter of the travel ban, where Trump and his minions have expressed vile opinions about a major world religion.
3
They haven’t expressed any such views though. Assigning your own meanings to actions doesn’t count legally as evidence.
3
You mean that Trump’s retweeting of videos used by Britain First to fan the flames of anti-Muslim hatred should be ignored as inconsequential?
Trump certainly has expressed disparaging remarks about Muslims.
1
All of you who see this case as the right of an individual to not have their religious views compromised are very wrong. The bakeshop has no religious views, nor does Hobby Lobby or Chick Fil A.
Their owners have views but these businesses are operating as corporations and as such enjoy many benefits. Chief among these are limited liability for the owner - his personal assets cannot be attached if there is a judgement against the business - and various contract and enforcement provisions that help a business run smoothly. In return for such benefits a corporation can not discriminate and must serve the public.
If the baker wants to choose who to serve let him do so as an individual. As long as he operates behind and enjoys the protections of a corporate veil he is obliged to serve the public. As I said at the start, the baker may go to church on Sunday but the bakeshop certainly does not.
11
That’s not at all true, nor is it the issue. You can’t compel a business to create a new anything for you. If he had kicked them out it would be one thing, or if he said they could not buy anything off the shelf. He didn’t. He simply refused to create a unique thing that they requested, a thing he had also never made or sold to anyone else. To say he can be sued is like to say you can sue a tailor because he only makes a certain pattern of jean and you want a different one, or to sue Metallica because you hired them but then they declined to play your requested polka music. It’s absurd.
4
Wrong. This is a family-owned business of devout Christians. The Supreme Court upheld their right of religious views.
3
steve
...”He simply refused to create a unique thing that that they requested, a thing he had also never made or sold to anyone else”.......
????
the baker makes custom wedding cakes for heterosexual couples
but refused to do same for a gay couple.
how is this behavior not discriminatory ?
1
The decision was narrow because the Justices focused in on the baker as an artists and thus SOME of what he sells is a personal expression of craft and skill; it wasn't narrow in the split of the justices. He offered the couple a cake from the shelf and he didn't refuse them purchase of ordinary non-specialized one-of-kind items in his shop; he did not want to participate in their union because he believes it's a sin and asking him to craft a cake for such an event was asking him to participate in it in a way that compromised his beliefs.
I have to say I think Justice was served and I think the baker has the right to his beliefs.
16
That is why, when the left is focusing on "narrow decision" as an error in the headline, the mistake is actually "turned away". They were free to buy anything on the shelf. He just wasn't going to put their faces on a cake, which undoubtedly requires artistic skill. They left of their own accord.
2
The comments to this article show that there is a serious lack of understanding of conservative Christian beliefs among the readers of this newspaper. Conservative Christians do not oppose gay marriage because conservative Christians "hate" gays. Everyone -- men, women, gay, strait, black, white, Asian, Hispanic -- are equal in the eyes of God. The issue is that gay marriage is a directly counter to the authority of the Bible, the nature of the Divine-human relationship, and Christian anthropology.
This country is deeply divided on so many issues including this one. The Times should perform a service for its readership and publish an in-depth article explaining why gay marriage it so impactful on the beliefs conservative Christians. That might generate a better understanding of conservative Christians' genuinely held beliefs among the supporters of gay marriage and be a good first step down the path to all of us getting along.
18
You are not misunderstood.
2
ok
so if you are a conservative christian, then don’t engage in gay marriage.
but don’t impose your religious belief around marriage on your customers. it should be of no consequence to the seller what kind of wedding the couple is planning or who the partners are.
i have my religious beliefs and i am not the least bit interested if others agree with mine.as long as i can freely practice mine.
my religious practice does not and should not
include my feeling violated if others practice differently.
6
What is harder to understand is why people who think gay marriage is an affront to God care what other people do. Don't these same Christians want the freedom to believe what they want, without someone else telling them they can't?
Believe in what you want and let others believe what they want. If someone breaks the law, they face the consequences. Other than that, people should respect others, if not seek to understand why people may have different beliefs from them.
Speaking of trying to understand others, moralizing to others about the lives they should or shouldn't lead is hardly making the effort to bridge gaps in understanding. It shows a rigid thinking and lack of willingness to be open to differences.
Sadly, many societies and communities that judge others make people feel unloved and unwelcome, the opposite of what Jesus taught.
7
The interpretation of the Bible has become so perverted that “religious beliefs” have become nothing more than a convenient way to hide hatred, fear and bigotry. Religion is fiction unlike science and I question whether we should be elevating religious beliefs to the point where they are unchallengeable.
Additionally, by siding with the baker, the Supreme Court is encouraging a “separatist” mindset and that is not what we need right now. Maybe if the baker had worked with the gay couple, he would have seen their humanity and learned to be more open-minded. But it’s much easier to keep believing in your “truth” whether or not it’s actually reflective of reality.
7
So, the Supreme Court says Colorado showed hostility toward religion. OH, thank goodness, neither the Supreme Court OR Colorado have EVER shown hostility to gays, much less to immigrants, blacks, poor . . .
If laws are wrong if based on the "hostility" of their execution, then I have about 14,000,000 school board, city, county, state, and federal laws the Supreme Court needs to revisit.
Please get right on it, Justices Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch* (*fake justice), and Thomas.
Let us know which laws have and have not been made or executed without undue hostility. A lot of us non-Christians want to know.
11
The insanity of needing a Supreme Court decision settle a dispute over baking a cake.. priceless
11
My question to the justices would be: If I subscribe to a religion that says the races are not equal (for example, a bible toting white nationalist, or any other religion I want to form), would it be ok for me to turn away black folks from my business? Is it really any different, since my faith espouses this type of discrimination?
7
I agree and might add: Does the cake maker turn away straight couples that have been fornicating prior to their marriage? I know pre-marital sex was very much frowned upon in my painful, guilt ridden christian upbringing.
5
Gays are not a protected class. The Fourteenth Amendment was passed in order to correct the historical injustices committed against blacks under the color of the law. Forty years ago Congress declared women a protected class, but one could say that white middle class women benefited the most from it. Now gays are pushing for special protection, but mainly white middle class gays will benefit. The only ones not really making any headway are blacks who are still struggling under the legacy of slavery.
Steve, the Court HAS ruled on this. In legal parlance “Hate Speech” isn’t okay (presumably even bible-toting hate speech). Even though freedom of speech is protected by the 1st Amendment, your freedom has some limits as determined by previous SCOTUS rulings.
If Phillips is the artist he touts to be, then he's quite unusually closed minded for an artist. isn't that an oxymoron?
3
Before the anti-LGBTQ crowd celebrates, they should keep in mind this ruling could have unintended consequences. They may applaud the ruling now b/c it reinforces their bigotry, but who's to say it can't be turned around as a defense not to do business with these same bigots at some point? If religious belief is now a reason not to serve someone, anyone driving a car with a "Christian" bumper sticker can be denied service. Wearing a cross pendant? Who says a restaurant needs to seat you?
8
Are you REALLY sure you said what you intended? That all of us has the right to coerce any and everyone else into doing what we want??? I would have thought you’d have meant the opposite, but ok! Let the games begin!!!
3
This comment perfectly underscores how liberals simply do not understand the difference between tribal fighting and actual principles. The people who applaud this, would not only not be upset if you had to right to refuse them, they would heartily cheer it.
It’s not about any one group winning. It’s about the principle that everyone has their rights, and those rights do include the right to coerce others into doing what you want.
6
The question was narrow, in spite of what the Left tried to make it so of course the decision was too. The ruling was broad though, 7-2. This was not about discrimination against a faux protected class it was malicious religious discrimination as evidenced by comments made by the Colorado board members. The bakers would have served the homosexuals in any manner except this. The Left demands abject abdication to their every whim, regardless to custom, tradition, history, reason or law.
6
Narrow Margin? 7 to 2 seems to my recollection of Math to be 2/3's ..
One thing that would turn the tide of rights in this country is the one to sanction worshiping in our chosen religion and abiding by it's teachings. Trying to change us all to think marriage is not forever divorce is okay every couple of years.
Children born out of wedlock gay rights is okay and any other changes deemed acceptable will be accepted if against Gods law well not yet!
2
Sad to say, it doesn’t matter to the general public that this debacle was the result of bigotry, hypocrisy, discrimination, and hatred. That’s not what they’ll see.
Far took many will only see that millions of dollars of their tax dollars were squandered because two gay men threw a hissy fit because someone wouldn’t bake ‘em a cake..
Watch the movie “Chicago “.. It’s all about perception - ya gotta razzle-dazzle ‘em...!
4
Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I believe there is NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING, in the New Testament about Jesus Christ saying anything about homosexuality. I'm not gay and these self described "Christians" are not Christians either. To cloak their bigotry behind the loving teachings of Christ is a moral obscenity.
15
For centuries, the Catholic Church, Eastern Orthodox Churches and Protestant/Reformed denominations have all preached that homosexuality was immoral and condemned by God in the Old Testament Bible. In the New Testament, Jesus Christ explicitly stated, "Do not think I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish but to fulfill. Amen, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest part or the smallest part of a letter will pass from the law, until all things have taken place." (Matthew 5:17). Only within the last 40 years or so have certain Christian denominations tried to rationalize homosexuality as compatible with Christian teaching. Those are the same denominations that are dying, e.g. the Episcopal Church, etc. As an attorney and someone who has intensively studied theology for 40 years, the reasoning of such modern clerics is hilarious as it requires some incredible mental gymnastics and denial of the explicit text on which they rely for their jobs.
4
So you are disparaging certain religions because you find their rationale laughable? Whatever
1
You’ve read about of the bible as most commentators here have read of the actual decision.
1
The court made the correct decision. The baker was not discriminating against gays. It was the product. You can't force a Kosher deli to sell pork. The gays were offered an off the shelf cake. They declined. These two who brought the lawsuit give gays a bad name.
8
Totally agree!
4
How do people not understand this? He makes a certain range of cakes. He does not make others. It’s a stupid demand he make anything to suit your whim, as to sue Ford because they don’t sell Honda.
4
If anything, the couple exposed the anti-religious bias of that Civil Rights Commission, and now a clear message from SCOTUS has been sent in that regard.
1
So, is the reverse situation OK then ?
Could someone be denied service because they believe marriage is between one man and one woman ? That would seem fair. How about medical treatment ?
4
Yes they could. If the exact same situation, a Christian couple walked into a bakery owned by gays and wanted ‘marriage is one man and one woman’ put on their cake, and the baker declined to make it, that would be fine.
What liberals don’t understand is that this possibility is not threatening to conservatives. They cheer it.
3
They would not be the reverse situation. Clearly you do not understand the case or the principle behind the decision.
Yes it would be illegal to refuse the same service to a specific group, that you give to others. But no, if you’re a hospital that does surgery on people, it’s not illegal to refuse to do it on dogs......you’re not an animal hospital.
This guy doesn’t make cake that go against his values. He doesn’t make them for gays or straights, or anybody. He does sell anything that he does make, to everybody. The couple didn’t want to buy the stuff he makes. They wanted to buy something he doesn’t make. He doesn’t sell things he doesn’t make, so he could not do that.
3
Yes, if there’s one thing we know about conservatives, it’s that they would definitely “cheer” a minority refusing to serve them based on the conservatives’ religious beliefs. Yep, not only would they accept that without complaint, they wouldn’t be able to contain their happiness and they’d just have to cheer!! Yay!!
Just like last month when an Oakland coffee shop said they wouldn’t serve police and a bunch of jobless, enraged right-wingers showed up trying to provoke a confrontation (and then decided to harass vendors and customers at a farmer’s market). Wait—I thought they were supposed to cheer?
Sure, Steve. Keep patting yourself on the back for being the only one who understands what’s going on here. You definitely have a grasp on it. No, really.
2
If then (supposing) I, as the head of the "Church of the Inherent Supremacy of Blondes" decide that my clothing store will not sell to orientals, jews, or other non blondes, do i then have the right to not sell clothing to them? How is this different from members of the KKK not selling to blacks, etc...?
6
Try even just a little bit to understand the case. Even just a little bit.
They did not decline to sell them a cake. They were offered any off the shelf item they wanted. They declined to make an entirely new, entirely unique cake.
As a store owner, if you declined to sell clothes to certain people, the same clothes you sell to others, you would be at fault. If you can’t understand the difference, you cannot understand what’s going on here.
6
As one humorist said, it’s now OK for a gay doctor to refuse to treat a homophobe. All good.
4
No it isn’t, if he offers the same treatments to others. But he cannot be compelled to offer some other treatment to a homophobe, which he also does not offer to anyone else.
It’s stupefying how this difference is not understand, yet so clear.
3
So much intolerance. Walk a mile in a man's shoes and then viciously attack his character.
The baker sells his wares to anyone without malice or discrimination. He loves his gay friends and family members and prays for their souls just the same as he does for straights.
He believes that a wedding is a religious event. Working with the couple to make the blessed event as perfect as possible is not just his job, it is his calling. He feels he is a participant in the ceremony.
But he cannot in good conscious provide his best work for a ceremony he thinks is a sin. He would not be part of a ceremony that included minors or polygamists even if they were legal. That is part of the religious code he chooses to live his life by.
The baker knows that because of his beliefs the couple would be better served by another baker under these circumstances. He knows this decision will cost him dearly both financially and personally. He will be judged by millions as a pariah and a hateful intolerant person. But he accepts the mostly unfair condemnation.
Is that really so awful?
14
Yes. Anything the intolerant self appointed PC police don't like is awful.
5
That baker thinking he's part of the ceremony is like my taxi driver imagining he's my next of kin. Must be a Trump thing, narcissism or megalomania or something.....
6
If anything, the bakers are the ones who appear reasonable and respectful. The couple appear ideologically driven and in search of a battle. Of course, this is how laws are changed, so I don't blame them. The problem is they picked the wrong fight, and in the process, exposed that Civil Rights Commission.
1
This court case has its lines of constitutional debate....and freedom was the basis of it. The Baker had a right to refuse based on his religious freedom....and Mullins and Craig had their freedoms to expression by their gay and/or same sex marriage. But to be able to operate a personal business today in the United States becomes a travesty through so many different cultural dissents. You can find yourself in court over racial bias, over gay bias, over firearm selling, over alcohol, over cigarettes, over sexual harassment in the work place, ....but to be religious and maintain faith in God, places you in the cross hairs of every one that lives their lives on the edge. I applaud the Court's decision to help protect free enterprise. And a proprietor's right to refuse service that does not hold in conjunction with their faith or self serving beliefs. Chik -fila had to suffer that same ridicule for refusing service to gays. Based on the same ideas. America has lost its morality and its decaying standards and ideas always have to be tested in some court. The absolute greatest decaying factor in the United States hinges on two resources...its freedom to the people and their purported rights. This is killing America.
4
Only in the minds of a fake news organization peddling it's own sophistry could a 7-2 decision handed down by the Supreme Court of the United States be considered a "Narrow Decision".
Justice prevailed for religious freedoms and not social engineering.
4
Mike hunt: I believe you are misunderstanding what is meant by "narrow decision." It has nothing to do with the number of justices on a decision. Rather it refers to the scope of the decision. In this case, the scope was narrow indeed, leaving the door open for other similar cases to be determined differently.
6
Only in the mind of someone screaming Fake News would there be such a complete misunderstanding about what is 'narrow' about this decision--i.e. its IMPLICATIONS.
4
Pssst! A narrow decision ISN’T determined by the numbers of justices on either side of the vote! It IS determined by the scope and focus of the decision! As in: “can this decision set precedent, and determine the course of other lawsuits?” Narrow decisions can’t! They have a narrow focus- just the case they’re attached to, and perhaps if another case, with ALL the same circumstances comes along.
How many people can keep asking why this was a narrow decision?
I believe the phrase "narrow decision " refers to the legal scope of the Supreme Court finding and not to the proportion of the justices who agreed on the decision.
4
Yes, you are correct which is why I found so many comments asking why it was a "narrow" 7-2 decision amusing. Apparently not everyone understands what a narrow decision is.
1
In my view, a baker has to bake the cake for anyone per the generally applicable anti-discrimination law (you can't claim your religion forbids you from obeying the law as an excuse).
But the baker doesn't have to write anything on the cake against his religious beliefs and would be allowed to attach something akin to a disclaimer to the cake (or in his store) stating his religious objection.
Overly legalistic, I'd say, but it's how I would draw the line between a non-expressive action and expression of religious beliefs and speech.
2
This case is an attempt to protect the rights of refusal of a baker to go against his religious beliefs and rights. It seems what he did sincerely was for love of his religion and not hatred of the gay couple wanting to get married. As a private businessman he has rights and he did nothing illegal but if a US government employee were to do the same or refuse service to a gay couple or conform to the laws of the land, I don't think that should be acceptable.
6
After having read this reading my only conclusion after months that the reading of threads is that it is too progressive and that they have the capacity to see in this case by the point of you of the other religious has a concept of what it is to be in debt to God.
But they also see the government as the referee of the behavior today is not understood libertarianism the right to be left alone by the government
1
Despite the narrow focus of Justice Kennedy’s majority opinion, this will embolden those who wish to discriminate against gays and lesbians.
The Supreme Court should have refused to rule on the case because it was flawed by anti-religious comments of a single member of the Civil Rights Commission. SCOTUS should have turned the case back to lower courts.
5
SCOTUS dodged an important issue with their focus on a technicality.
It would have been much better if the ruling clarified the following:
• A public establishment must treat all customers the same way; if a baker will sell a three-tiered cake for a wedding to John and Briana, he should sell an identical cake to John and Brian.
• A business owner cannot be forced to sell or design an item. If a baker does not bake Halloween cakes for any member of the public, he can refuse to bake a Halloween cake for a specific individual and explain that he does not do that kind of design for anybody.
• A business owner who advertises (as John Phillips does with his slogan: "Jack Phillips creates a masterpiece. Custom designs are his specialty: If you can think it up, Jack can make it into a cake!") that he will do whatever the customer wants is guilty of either false advertising and/or discrimination if he refuses to honor his own pledge.
This is not complicated. A democratic society has the right to expect that a merchant with a public business will provide equal service to the general public.
10
My only conclusion after reading months of reading threads is that too many Progressives have an inability to see this case for the point of you of the religious other. They do not have a concept of what it means to be beholden to God.
They also see government as the arbiter of behavior. They do not have an understanding of libertarianism, the right to be left alone by government.
9
Why make a federal case out of whether someone wants your cake baking business or not...just move on to a different baker.
19
Mr Phillips should spend less time fighting this misguided cause and more reading the bible. I consider myself an evangelical, and a bible believing Christian. The teachings of Jesus do NOT teach such ideas as this. Jesus was confronted with a scene on earth where a woman was caught in adultery. Everything that was currently known about God would have had the woman stoned according to the law of Moses. Jesus looked at the crowd and said "he who is without sin, should cast the first stone." The crowd dispersed. Jesus proved that He now set as the precedent mercy, even when the laws of his people required judgement. Perhaps Mr Phillips would have thrown the first stone!
4
but David, if you look at Romans ch. 1 you can cleary see that homosexuality is a sin. the trouble with this conversation is not if homosexuality is a sin, which the bible defines as such in Leviticus and Romans but if it is worse than any other or any bodies' sin which it is not. Sin is Sin. neverless homosexuality is a sin
3
Personally, I don't subscribe to the baker's (discriminatory) beliefs. If he had been selling a standardized product or service, or a government employee, he'd have no right of refusal. In fact he did offer to sell the couple a ready made cake as an option, but it was declined. That was their choice. Since the baker was requested to make a custom cake he should have the right to accept or decline the commission, without reproach or ridicule. Same would hold true if he were offered a commission as an architect, writer, painter, musician, sculptor, engineer, etc. Being able to commission a work, regardless of what it's for, is not a civil right, or liberty. When the demands of others, or commerce supersede free will, beliefs, time and inclination, we are all dancing to someone else's tune.
13
I am dumbfounded by the overwhelming rancor and hatefulness displayed by so many who claim to be liberals.
"Liberalism is a political and moral philosophy based on liberty and equality."
The Civil Rights Commission sanctioned this bakery based on their pre-existing prejudices of what they think Christians do. That is what the Supreme Court found.
Most commenters here are doing the exact same thing. Wake up and smell the hypocrisy. Ignorant stereotyping of religion is no better than ignorant stereotyping of race or preference.
14
I believe the phrase "narrow decision " refers to the legal scope of the Supreme Court finding and not to the proportion of the justices who agreed on the decision.
5
The decision does not give license to discriminate against lgbtq+ people. Though it may embolden the ignorant to discriminate against the queer community, they'd be quickly struck down in court. This is because, as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, the reason why the Supreme Court decided in favor of the baker was that they found the Colorado Civil Rights Court's decision to have bias toward his religious beliefs (however ironic that may be). This is similar to the status of illegally obtained evidence in court; though the evidence may be right, it is inadmissible in court because of its illegality; though the lower court's decision may be right, it is inadmissible because of its bias. This means that Justice Kennedy implied that if no anti-religious bias was found in the lower court's decision, the Supreme Court may have very likely ruled in favor of David Mullins and Charlie Craig. In fact, despite the Supreme Court's decision to rule against the couple, this can actually be viewed as a step forward for lgbtq+ rights as Justice Kennedy affirmed in the decision that lgbtq+ individuals are of the same dignity, rights, and privileges as anybody else in society. These are not just empty words because they can be cited as precedent in future cases to rule in favor of lgbtq+ individuals who have been discriminated against. All in all, things are not always so simple.
3
The court punted. And they've left Colorado - and the rest of us - in a ridiculous situation, essentially requiring that courts must now make judgements about the "sincerity" of a plaintiff's religious belief. This has opened up a huge can of worms and God help us, who knows what's going to come crawling out. In effect, the court has judged so narrowly, no wheel of judgement will be attenuated enough to follow its path.
9
It's only ridiculous to Relativists, Postmoderns, Structuralists and the legions of religious adherents to Critical Theory.
To Conservatives, Classical Liberals and Libertarians, this case is cut and dried.
4
It was essentially a compromise! It gave the decision to THIS defendant only! However, most of the radical right have been cheering as if they’ve just rewritten the constitution to force radical right wing Christianity down everyone’s throats! There was only a narrow decision, NOT a landmark one!
And.... crickets from the bench. Basically The Court punted all the big constitutional questions here and ruled on a one-off this scenario only technicality. No win for any “side” here.
4
I think that most gay people understand religious freedom even though most of us are not deeply involved with religion. I don't think we want religious people to be forced to do something that is against their beliefs. Our concern is the leeway this grants to bigots or others who wish to make our lives harder for some other reason. We are not a protected class. In many states you can still be fired for being gay. I always get uncomfortable when going to rent an apartment. I usually go alone to see it, and bring my partner after. So there is less of a chance they will turn us away. The concern we have is about all of these other things. Where if enough people say they are religious and against us, we could have issues in the future. Impossible? Probably not.
2
How is 7-2 a narrow decision? 5-4 is narrow, 7-2 is a thrashing in any sport and in this instance resounding affirmation that Colorado was wrong. The author might be able to turn a phrase but needs to work on his overly ignorant interpretation of basic math. C'mon, let's keep it honest over there!
4
This refers to the scope of the decision. Narrow just means the court didn't set a precedent. They only commented on this particular case. Instead of saying something big that would apply to lots of things. It doesn't have anything to do with the vote. So your anger seems...silly? Misplaced?
3
To fix it, maybe you need to change your Constitution to justify your rights at the expense of other people’s rights? With so many people dying thru malicious acts of violence, I think society as a whole as lost its compass and found out it is more important to worry about who gets a baked cake or not.... we surely live in a world of lost souls.
1
Wouldn’t it be a weird coincidence if the climate stopped changing tomorrow, the day after this decision? The religious right would be impossible to live with. All the Democrats would start burning all the coal they could get their hands on.
2
So can a baker refuse to make a wedding cake for an Evangelical couple of the opposite sex if is the baker's sincere religious belief that intolerant people are evil?
9
In short, we don't know.
2
Not a religious belief, but yes unless it’s a protected class an establishment can deny service to anyone.
5
Dear Mr. Masterpiece baker, Jesus must be crying over how you express your beliefs by excluding others.
4
I cant get over it. A homophobe is being allowed to reject his fellow man , his brethren, because Jesus, who was Soooo conditional in His love, told him to .
The good news is that for every barbaric bit of ignorance that comes down the societal pike , a beautiful demand for unconditional love is born . Along spiritual lines , as Bill W knew, do we all grow
2
I guess if I open a business, I can declare that no "long haired hippy freaks" will be served.
1
Most folks here are basing theIr comments on the headlines rather than what the Court actually said. The majority opinion Found that the baker did not get a fair hearing at the state level because one of the Commision members kept questioning whether the baker had a true religious basis for turning the couple away.
The Supreme Court decision doesn’t say that the baker was wrong or right. It just says that he did not get a fair hearing are the Commision. It’s still not clear whether or not he had a legal right to refuse to serve the newlyweds.
6
The decision appears to this old lawyer, to be among a group read in law school, during a bygone era to be sure, which were said to limit the holding under review to its facts. And the opinion's author, as I recall, almost always used the very language "limited to its facts." Nothing more, nothing less. My further recollection is that those decisions didn't usually involve either Constitutional questions or questions the resolution of which had implications for society in general in the way free speech and same sex marriage appear to have. Clearly, the majority decided "to punt rather than 'go for it'." Guess only time will tell whether that will have been a good idea. I would not have thought so.
7
Not being learned in American juris prudence it is my understanding that, contrary to this article’s assertion, the U.S. Supreme Court did NOT find that the religious rights of the Colorado baker trumped those of the gay couple but rather found that the Colorado state commission which initially heard the case had been biased in it’s findings. Theocracy is not yet triumphant.
6
I wouldn't call a 7-2 decision "narrow" though I could see why the word was used in the headline once I'd read the story through. But what a strange contrast this story presents! It concerns people in Denver who think homosexuality is a sin. Meanwhile here in New York we have a proposal that babies not even be identified by sex at birth -- a proposal that reflects the widespread tolerance and support that persons of atypical sexuality enjoy here. Both these positions enjoy widespread support across the country -- and it is so passionate on both sides that what the very independent investigative journalist Seymour Hersh said, in his interview in Monday's print edition of the Times, looks almost like second sight. "We have a divided America," he said. "A really bitterly divided America. Do we really need the Russians to tell us we're a troubled country?" Personally, I wish we'd stop obsessing about the Russians and work more on trying to re-introduce more civility into our public discourse, and trying to treat even our bitterest opponents with more tolerance, whether or not we get any leadership in this effort from our political leaders.
I don't have more to add here than others have already said. Just curious how a 7-2 decision can be labelled as "narrow".
1
The ruling is narrow not the margin for or against. I think the decision is unclear as to what set of facts would pass muster with the Court. Mention was made of an anti-religious comment made by a member of the state commission, but I don’t think that was decisive. It does seem that great deference must be given to religious belief and expression. To me the actions of the two plaintiffs seemed unnecessarily confrontational. They acted as if the whole world should revolve around them.
2
This baker supposedly believes in god right?
So didn't god make homosexual people as well as heterosexual people,?
So why should they be denied a cake since god made them too? Or does god only apply to to straight white men?
The hypocrisy , small mindedness and spite of this baker is sick. Nobody's forcing him to become gay.
He runs a business open to the public. Therefore he is obligated to serve the public, not decide which public he chooses
I've had an abortion: would he refuse to make me a wedding cake?
Because in the eyes of his " religion" I have sinned.?
Just wondering...
3
it was Not a narrow decision. to me this case seemed a little like a nuisance case. The couple could have gone somewhere else, but chose to make a federal issue of it. The court , furthermore, looked at this case specifically, so that the ruling likely won't be interpreted across all cases. I think it was fair, and I think everybody needs to show more tolerance, understanding and compassion for each others points of view
2
I live in Colorado...the Supreme court mentions other cases where the Colorado civil rights commission said another bakery could indeed discriminate and refuse service based on what they believe...the Supremes saw the double standard, one for the Christian baker and a complete OPPOSITE standard for another Bakery...My guess is this had a lot to do with their ruling...https://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/news-archive/archive-friday/denver...
3
Presidents commit war crimes with impunity, torturers torture with impunity and now religious bigots can indulge their bigotry with impunity.
Rather exceptional indeed.
8
A major victory for free speech, freedom of religion and the free enterprise system. Homosexuals are free to take their business elsewhere and line the pockets of business owners who want their money.
It's really that simple. Piece of cake.
9
Actually the ruling had absolutely nothing to do with free speech, had a tenuous connection to freedom of religion and absolutely nothing to do with the free enterprise system.
With regards to freedom of religion, the Court ruled that sincerely held religious beliefs need to be considered fairly - it did not rule that they need to be upheld.
5
Given that homosexualiy is an immutable characteristic, I don’t understand your reasoning.
You could easily substitute Black for gay, since skin color also is immutable. As such, how is what you suggest not discriminatory?
Also, I wonder if those who are so adamant about free speech, freedom of religion, and free enterpise are willing to be on the receiving end of their own convictions on the grounds of their own immutable characteristics.
Seems unlikely. Interesting double standard.
4
And by the same beautiful logic, a gay doctor will have no obligation to save your life. You can take your business elsewhere and line the pockets of some straight doctor.
7
Narrow decision?! 7-2 seems pretty one sided to me. Not sure what the nyt considers narrow but 78 percent of the vote is a fairly wide birth to qualify as narrow...
3
They say narrow because the decision and opinion were only based on this case and didn't set a precedent. fdIt doesn't have to do with the vote.
1
"Narrow decision" refers to the precedent set by the case. This decision was not about the baker, his actions, religion or the rights of gays.
The Civil Rights commission based their actions on faulty and discriminatory beliefs. The decision is only about this commission and this case.
1
I suspect everyone now will need up front discussions before work is done to be sure that no one has a secret Christian agenda- from a Christian.
4
You consider a 7-2 vote “close”?
2
It was never said the vote was “close”... what WAS said wax that it was a “narrow decision “. This means that this decision only applies to THIS case. It cannot be used as a precedent in any other case.
I'm sorry, but this headline is off...it was 7-2...how is that narrow? Albeit a decision that lacks teeth, nonetheless far from narrow.
1
I'm baffled. But this is my state of mind most days since January 2017. It seems to me that if a particular religion - like fundamental Christianity - 'sincerely believes' that homosexuality goes against their beliefs, then they ought not to allow gays in their church - as odious as I personally find that stance. But cakes? Consumer goods? Come on! How I would love to visit that baker on behalf on some engaged gay friends, order the cake, pick it up, and then thank him 'sincerely' for his efforts, and send photos of the happy couple enjoying his cake. In fact.....
8
Sounds good... I’d rather get 50 or so friends, to show up, male and female, and spend an hour or so, going over all the choices, and then cancelling out at the last minute... over and over and over again!!! waste his time and money (since he won’t get any return on his time spent on the consultation!)
1
How would they rule if a Muslim man said he could not make a cake for an unaccompanied woman?
It seems clear to me that the baker should not be able to discriminate and if his religion goes against the law then he can choose not to be a baker. That is his choice.
Now how do you judge “legitimate” religious beliefs also. Seems like an open door for people to start discriminating against each other.
7
Re: Justice Gorsuch’s concurrence. Someone should enlighten him to the fact that, contrary to what he ignorantly asserts, a kippah IS just a cap. It is firmly established in the Orthodox Jewish communities that a baseball cap or a fedora or a helmet will be equally suitable for compliance with the religious edict of covering one’s head that is customarily fulfilled by the wearing of a kippah.
5
This headline is a perfect example of why main stream medial news organizations are viewed as untrustworthy and biased. While the "scope" or latitude of the decision may have been "narrow', the decision in favor of the baker's rights was an overwhelming 7-2.
Only when left wing journalists cease to inject your personal biases into stories, will you ever have a chance of being trusted more than a 3-card monte dealer. For now, it's a push at best.
7
We know what a narrow decision means. You are preaching to the FOX and Friends people.
1
i believe "narrow" refers to the scope of the legal precedent set forth by the judges' arguments
but i agree in that major news organizations should have learned by now to avoid potentially ambiguous headlines in this day and age
2
I have a somewhat uncommon (not unique I'm sure) perspective on this. My wife and mother are both devout Christians, my daughter is gay, and I am a devout agnostic. I attend church once a month with my wife and mother mostly to placate them, but over time I found it interesting to really understand their perspective. If my daughter finds someone she truly loves ( and I hope she does, I love her with every cell in my heart) I would support her and her partner wanted if they wanted to make a commitment and call it marriage. I'm sure my wife and mother would also (mainly because I am the man and leave them no choice). Anyway if one Christian baker refused to make a cake for the hypothesized marriage, I would console my daughter to just find another, we cannot force people to change, we can just hope over time that tolerance wins the day (she would listen because again I am her father). Some things just take time and intolerance from all sides delays that time.
5
No. Your daughter would not even be able to marry (like I did at 50) without all of us fighting the hard legal battles over the past 50 years. We didn’t wait around until the compassionate American Christian hearts deemed it ok. So if you really want to be there for her, do it. The fight ain’t over, obviously.
2
I’m no legal expert. I’ve read so many of the comments and I now have to use my God given common sense.
This decision stinks.
4
So basically, if the people who make a reasonable decision sound snarky, then the rights of the people they support are tossed into the trash, and the snarkee's rights are upheld.
Sound thinking.
This will be just as narrow as the Hobby Lobby case, which of course opened the door to all sorts of cases - like this one. And we will eventually come to the conclusion that we can abrogate the rights of anyone, anytime, just as long as we are sincerely sure that God would want us too.
And yeah. That's snarky. Sue me.
6
I wish more people would read the entire opinion.
8
An excellent day for bakers...painters, sculptors, musicians, designers, architects, craftsmen.....anyone who sells their creative skills for ad-hoc requests.
Today's dose of Truth was a smack down of Critical Theory nonsense.
8
Please read
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/04/opinion/gay-marriage-cake-case.html
But of course, this is America, where everyone is a victim, everyone is entitled, and everyone is oppressed.
No wonder the Norwegians ignore Trump's exhortation to immigrate.
8
In what parallel universe 7:2 a 'narrow' decision?
9
Narrow doesn’t reference the score. It references the scope of the case. The article spells this out.
Not sure I understand the celebratory reactions to this decision.
The SCOTUS simply ruled that the CCRC showed Phillips undue hostility, thus violating Phillip’s religious freedom.
But there was no ruling on whether religious exemptions are applicable to all similar situations. This was a very narrow scope by a majority of the Court. That’s all.
As such, this is not carte blanche permission to refuse service to whomever one so chooses based on religious objections.
While it is extremely unfortunate that some people must fight for equal rights already guaranteed them by the Consitution, it very well may be that the only protection the secular state has from the subjective whims of the church is the emergent, permanent gestalt comprised of various court cases.
As someone so succinctly phrased in another comment, the Court has routinely sided with gay, lesbian, transgendered, and other genders. Expect that to continue.
6
A clear case of religious bigotry not a gay rights issue. Forcing behaviors that conflict with religious beliefs that harm no one outside the belief holder is agenda driven quicksand. This can return in a new form that can entrap the initial perpetrator of intolerance: in this case the gay couple.
Tolerance and rights are often strange bedfellows when forced to share the same bed.
3
7-2 isn't a "narrow decision", 5-4 is. You can sugar coat it anyway you like but here's the outcome: the American experiment is over. Religion and bigotry have won the day. The same egregious argument could be used to deny service to anyone you don't like, for any reason.
2
Too bad about Cold Fusion as well. Walking is probably better for us anyway. Migratory animals also don’t have a problem with who their neighbor is either. Maybe failure doesn’t have to be such a bad thing.
I would make my own cake if in fact no baker would serve me. I would not eat the cake baked by a baker forced to serve me.
11
Saving a fancy wedding cake for an anniversary later is just a waste of freezer space anyway.
2
I am a left-leaning. On some level, I understand and agree with the SC decision. I think market factors should dictate whether a business is successful, or not. They should make it known and see where the public takes it. I also think that the Dems should quickly stop with the identify politics and concentrate on issues that will win elections. Clashing with right wing religious fanatics who hate gays will not win elections.
8
Freedom of conscience is the core of freedom of religion. The baker is within his rights to view lifestyles that he considers to be wrong according to his beliefs as not something he wishes to condone. However, no reasonable person supposes that shopkeepers only sell to people with who they share the same views on religion and politics, so his selling a cake to these people would not cause anyone who is reasonable to think that he either condones or condemns their behavior. It's a commercial transaction not a statement of approval of the event.
Would the baker be within his rights to require hetereosexual couples to confirm that they will not use contraceptives, seek abortions, work on Sundays, nor blaspheme before making them a cake?
4
A simple test of the validity of the Jack Phillips’ argument is if he would have refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding if it had been two HETEROSEXUAL men that came into his shop to order it?
If he would have refused even if the men in question were heterosexuals, then it cannot be justifiably argued that he has animus towards homosexuals.
His beef was with same-sex marriage; not with homosexuals.
4
Shame on you Jack Phillips, shame on you!
6
Women hate, gay hate becomes a right in America. Our supreme court is neither supreme or just. I can't wait until the Old Haters die off, and justice and sing in the land.
4
People seem to forget that this is about the law, not just some justice's personal views on LGBTQ issues. 7 justices, a couple of whom voted in favor of the gay marriage ruling, ruled on the basis of legal principles and precedent. This should be taken into consideration when deciding whether to condemn them because they didn't vote the way you would have. The logic in the majority opinion is the only relevant consideration.
6
The lack of "respect" Kennedy talks about cannot be found in the initial decision by the Administrative Law Judge. It does not appear in the acceptance of that decision by the Commission. It does surface in the transcript of the Commission a few weeks later in what sounds like an exasperating attempt by the baker's legal team to get the Commission to ignore the judge's ruling and not penalize him. The lack of "respect" cannot be found in the Colorado Supreme Court ruling, either. The comment that lacked "respect" did not address the baker's religious beliefs. It made no claim as to his sincerity. It didn't argue with his theology.
Justice Kennedy had to dig pretty deep to find a pretty wobbly hook to hang his argument on.
3
To me this case and some similar ones involving photographers are more about artistic freedom and freedom of expression than religious freedom. Not all artists are religious and even for those who are, their religion doesn't enter into every decision they make or every piece of artwork they produce. This baker approached each custom cake he produced as a form of artistic expression as well as an expression of his emotions and celebration of the event the specific cake was prepared for. And he was willing to sell the couple a non-custom cake. As much as I support the cause of marriage equality and non-discrimination in commerce and public accomodations like restaurants and retail businesses I think some of these demands for custom artwork went too far. Same sex couples have a right to legally marry and that's a huge victory. It's not necessary to insist that every individual produce custom work to celebrate the wedding.
6
Gee Ms. Friedman. Thank you for for begrudgingly saying we have a huge victory because you are "letting us" marry. I wonder how you would feel if a baker would not bake a cake for you based on your religion or gender. I bent you would insist that your family be treated well and equally. With friends like you...
1
I disagree with the ruling but I follow the law and the court has spoken. I hope that we show respect and kindness to all as Americans.
1
This is an extremely disappointing SCOTUS ruling. Something has to give in the alt-right world of the US. The future is looking bleak for the world.
3
This is a very narrow decision. The baker had a dispute with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. SCOTUS basically said the commission did not consider the baker's religious beliefs. The case pertains only to this situation.
5
As a heterodox Catholic and a married gay man, I am left miserable and frustrated by this Supreme Court decision. As a student of religions, including Christianity, I feel that the Colorado commission was correct to doubt the worth of the baker's "religious beliefs." In the US, it is indeed true that some members of religious groups can be exempted from a public requirement on the basis of their traditional moral codes and practices. E.g., members of traditionally pacifist groups, such as Quakers and Mennonites, have been exempted from induction into military service; and Native Americans are permitted to consume peyote, and to collect and display the feathers and other body parts of protected birds, in accord with their religious traditions. By contrast, in Christianity, while it is traditional not to recognize same-sex marriages, and to consider the sexual activity of same-sex couples to be sinful, nevertheless it is NOT AT ALL part of Christian tradition to assert one is commanded by God to lose no opportunity to obstruct same-sex marriages, in lands in which they are legal.
The fact is, Christians who claim it is an important part of their "sincerely held beliefs" that they must be mean to gay people are lying. These people are homophobes first, before ever any Christian obligations entered their consciences. And now, they are just happy there are a handful of Bible verses, and some backward Christian congregations, that affirm their meanhearted prejudice.
6
Just how far does this kind of legal-craft go? In other words, can a whole variety of business venues start actively refuse service any kind of activity that condones same sex marriage, on the basis of religious freedom/expression?
Does this ruling not demonstrate further legal affinity towards discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation? Could not employers fire gay people because their lifestyle is a sin in their religion? (As some schools did when their teachers announced their upcoming nuptials.)
There has to be a limit to how much your Religion can justify discrimination of any kind. Religion is ultimately a private affair. There was a reason why there was a deliberate separation of the church and state written into the constitution. Ultimately when you are a business, you are no longer a private domain, you are practicing in the public arena, and thus beholden to rules that are not bound to scriptures.
What if this bakery decided to refuse service on the basis of the customer being a woman, a non-White person, or practitioner of a different faith? Would that be okay? Can you not just switch out the words same-sex marriage, with any other protected class?
1
In answer to your questions:
- not very far
- we don't know yet
- no
- we don't know yet
- we don't know yet
- we don't know yet
- yes
Wrong on the “no” answer. In many states, one can still legally lose their job for simply being gay.
3
I think you miscounted. "No" was in response to "Does this ruling not demonstrate further legal affinity towards discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation?".
In response to "Could not employers fire gay people because their lifestyle is a sin in their religion?" the answer was "We don't know yet".
Much optimism voiced about how things would be different if the Colorado commissioners had being more polite towards the baker and his beliefs.
This is correct: had the commissioners behaved more professionally, the baker would have won 5-4 instead of 7-2.
There is no escaping the fact that this court is a conservative one; they will never vote against anybody uttering the mantra: "religious persecution"
2
This seems to be a 'lose-lose' decision. I am not a student of the law, but the decision seems to leave those seeking the right of religion to discriminate AND those seeking freedom from discrimination for LGBT community. Neither issue was resolved by this decision.
1
7 to 2 is a narrow decision?
14
That’s not what narrow applies to. It means that this ruling can’t really be used in the broader sense for other issues.
3
I'm so glad someone asked this.
"Narrow" refers to the grounds for the decision, not the 7 to 2 vote. The baker prevailed because the Colorado commission did not show strict neutrality toward his faith, which is required by due process.
The Supreme Court nowhere suggests that merchants -- or artisans -- can discriminate, or that states can't pass anti-discrimination laws, and enforce them.
2
I think they mean "narrowly applied," in that the ruling essentially pertains to this case alone and will not necessarily affect any similar case in the future.
They do a poor job of communicating that, and many papers have taken the same tack. This reaffirms that so many of them just pass around the same copy of "How to Run a Newspaper," and likely share more than just incompetence.
Moreover, since so many readers these days don't even make it past the headline, that wording serves to fire up the base and get them agitated in all sorts of newsworthy ways that help push whatever agenda the media industrial complex finds profitable.
2
Freedom in the country of freedom: You have the freedom to be Christian. God help you if you want to be something else.
8
Discrimination disguised as religion is as old as the hills. Unfortunately it is now legal in the U.S.
6
It's really not.
2
The baker could have done the Christian thing and made the cake for two human beings who sincerely love each other. What would Jesus have done? It's time to put "Christ" back in "Christian".
16
It is tragic indeed when the Supreme Court of the USA shows in this decision that the court is absolutely ignorant when it comes to the subject of the separation of church and state. It has accepted the word of a religious fundamentalist who, too, knows no truth about this subject. The 7 on the court voting for the fundamentalist needs to take a serious course about church and state. I taught religious studies for 40 years and NO fundamentalist showed any true understanding of this topic. You 7 are really a sad group of ignorant persons!!!
7
I don’t think you read the article very carefully - the 7-2 ruling is misleading. There were multiple concurring opinions with different reasoning
2
The fact that the Times’ commentariat comprises so many people who know so much more about the law in general and constitutional issues in particular than the highly educated and experienced jurists sitting as Justices of the Supreme Court is absolutely astonishing...
1
That's fine. Good for the baker. Let him live by the Word Of God. It is his right. It should also be his right to So therefore it should also be his right not to bake cakes for non-married non-virgins, people who have had abortions, people who have divorced, people who have committed adultery, who have coveted something, stolen something, lied in any way possible etc.
14
That doesn't leave a lot of folks left to shop at his bakery.
3
It looks like only two Supreme Court Justices earn their pay check.
11
So the next time someone comes into my place of business wearing a MAGA, can I refuse service to them, too?
32
Yes !!
Give it a shot. What's the name and address of your business?
As long as you assert deeply and sincerely felt feelings and believed beliefs!
2
To those who sneer the so-called emotional reaction of leftists to this decision:
Right wingers are all over the neversphere today chortling in smug satisfaction that this decision somehow proves that being gay is a mental illness.
Where is the outrage over that emotional reaction?
Good god, on second thought, never mind. The right wing simply doesn’t care. How awful for the family members, kids especially, of those who support this.
9
After hearing and reading the basis of this decision it is clear, and should be emphasized, this was really a decision against the Colorado Court of Appeals. Kennedy focused on "flaws in the proceedings before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Members of the commission, he wrote, had acted with “clear and impermissible hostility” to sincerely held religious beliefs."
He further wrote:“this sentiment is inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.”
Does not sound to me as though the Supreme Court really addressed the discrimination against the couple and their rights.
12
Concur. This is my reading of the decision also. Emphasis of the decision was actually on the overt, anti-Christian, anti-religion discriminatory commentary by the State of Colorado panel overseeing this issue and in rendering their decision. That’s why this decision is important. It protects against the persecution of those who hold sincere religious beliefs. Even Kagan and Breyer saw this.
4
You are exactly right. This case was decided on it's specific facts. Apart from the general message that Government tribunals must give equal consideration to the arguments of all parties to a matter (something no fair-minded individual could argue with) there is no greater meaning to the decision. Whether service providers can legally refuse service to same-sex couples remains unknown.
2
He was not forced to participate in the wedding, just to sell an equal product to equal Americans. Bad call by the court, no matter how narrow the decision.
8
In my view, the court came to the right decision for the wrong reasons. Masterpiece won the battle (and perhaps lost business), but the LGBT community won the war. The court really did not find that a baker has a right not to create a cake for a same sex marriage. They did not really find that his religious freedom was violated except for the fact that the commission was hostile to his rights. What HR commission is not listening? All they need say is - instead of, that's the same argument people use to defend slavery or the holocaust - "Sir, we revere your first amendment religious beliefs, but . . . (balancing rights)." How does the LGBT community lose in the future, based on this ruling?
Although I've always been pro-same sex marriage and for "gay rights," in general, it seems to me this should not properly be a religious freedom case, just a freedom case. Even an atheist baker should have a right not to participate in any ceremony or institution he/she doesn't want to just b/c. It's more freedom of association. Yes, as Phillips admits, he has to sell the cake behind the glass to them, but not make something for them that makes him a participant. Even if I feel its silly to hold these beliefs, I agree he has the right to them, just as an attorney does not have to represent someone making a claim he/she does not agree with.
Also, I HATE that the court can determine who has a sincere religious belief or not. It is what the 1st amt. should prevent them from doing.
5
Deplorables win today. Not tomorrow.
6
Thanks Hillary. Now back to wandering in the woods.
2
I voted for same sex marriage. I am not religious. I also sided with the baker. Why? Because that gay couple continued fighting a fight that had already been won. This had nothing to do with discrimination (against them), but to do with self-protection (for the baker). The couple could easily have gone to another store, while the baker could not so easily change his religion for one cake. I hope that gay people see this as nothing negative against them, because it was never meant to be that. Religion, yes, while it has caused a lot of grief and destruction, it has also provided people with peace and relief. This was a very sensible decision.
10
Let's say I believe that all people with the name Aly are demonic. I own a tool store and you want to buy a hammer to build a pergola for your Aly-Aly wedding. I refuse to sell you that hammer because to do so would run counter to my closely held religious belief that you are demonic, and selling you that hammer would only promote your demonic lifestyle. By the way, all other tool store owners feel as I do. Have fun using that rock to pound your nails.
1
Look at the video. This guy "doesn't do Halloween cakes"—
Is that because of "Satan"? What if I want a cake for my birthday near October 31st and I want some green and black and orange"frosting". And maybe some figures (kids) dressed up in costumes? No cake, because I mentioned the "H" word?
What if I convinced him that Satan was lurking in all that refined sugar?
10
This was an easy call. Davis and Charlie were two trouble makers with an agenda, that is to force their gay beliefs down the throats of all business people everywhere, notwithstanding the sincere religious beliefs of the bakers that they took glee in trampling. 7-2 is a romp at the Supreme Court with only the 2 radical leftists Sotomayor and Ginsberg dissenting. Let them eat cake, just not cake from masterpiece bakery. Believe me, they will survive.
12
Actually, a same-sex couple could go into Masterpiece Bakery tomorrow and ask for a custom wedding cake and, if he refused to sell it to them, Mr Philli[ps could find himself back at the Supreme Court and even with a different outcome.
3
after reading so many comments i find myself feeling so disturbed @ the extent of defense for the baker, and excuses for SCOTUS.
the court simply didn’t take a stand. gorsuch writes for free expression of religion to extend beyond formal practices ....
what does that mean? that i can deny you a service that i provide to others as an expression of my religiosity?
the baker conducted business in a discriminatory way- for some he will custom bake. if he disapproves of you because you are gay( his version of religious values) he won’t custom bake. i’ll sell u crumbs but the others caviar.... how is that ok????? it’s not availability of materials or machinery, it was his choice to be intolerant.
in nazi germany the same discriminatory behaviors became insidiously accepted.
7
That's because some are perverting the argument.
He didn't refuse to make a cake because a homosexual was ordering it.
Any homosexual is welcomed into his store to purchase anything they want, just not a boy-boy cake wedding cake.
1
So, they aren't "welcomed into his store to purchase anything they want"?
What happens to me if my dearly held religious beliefs were to forbid me to serve an atheist, or a Jew? Or left-handed people? Or women? Or anyone over the age of 40?
7
Then it would probably be better for you not to start a business.
2
Help me, how does this case get to the Supreme Court---there isn't another Bakery in Colorado that bakes a cake. I am certainly sensitive to the civil rights issues involved, but, come on, life is too short to spend years (any money) over a cake. Now, being directed to sit at the back of a bus--well that is an entirely different matter.
8
over the course of history, if people communally thought like you we would still have the inquisition.
Some how you totally misunderstood the comment you replied to.
I’m seventy-years-old, queer as a $3 dollar bill, card carrying member of the HRC, and was actively involved (red area) in Washington State’s campaign, Ref. 74, for same sex marriage (we won!). And darn proud of all of the above...
For goodness sake, why would you want to even patronize a business that discriminated against you..?? Take your money elsewhere. I can’t help but feel that this has done little to help the image of the LGBT community - more negative perceptions than positive.
Anyway, Costco could have probably made a better cake - at a fraction of the price..
No, don’t ever give up the fight for equality, But, pick and choose your battles - especially given where we are politically..
Hugs (respectfully) to my brothers and sisters...
16
I like Costco’s cream filling.
3
For the same reason you fought against a state that discriminated against you: it’s the only way to secure your rights. No, its not about the cake, it’s about the legal right of a business, any business, open to the public to refuse service based on your sexual orientation. Which is the same as the wedding license ban from the city court clerk. Think more, congratulate yourself less.
3
So the Supreme Court feels that a cake can justify his bigotry
2
I’m a nurse. I believe that everyone has the right to do as they wish, as long as they don’t hurt anyone else. I believe that very strongly. Can I extrapolate from this decision and refuse to treat racists and homophobes on the basis that by treating them I condone their offensive behavior?
8
Our Pope said to a gay man last week "God made you, God loves you". That was the opening of a door. If only the Supreme Court could be so enlightened.
6
I believe that most people are being too emotionally invested in this ruling.
This ruling had next to nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with artistic expression freedom (or the right to not express such artistry).
The ruling though very 19th century is at the heart of creativity and the right to (or not) express said creativity.
This was not about conscience, as it's the baker who will have to wrestle with his, it's about freedom of expression.
3
Actually, it was about nothing of the sort. It was about whether or not Government tribunals should equally consider all sides of a matter.
1
It’s. A. Cake. A bakery open to the general public. They didn’t ask for center billing on the Sistine chapel.
2
He did not refuse to make the cake because the customers were gay, but because the cake was for a gay wedding. That said he was not discriminating anyone, he just decided not to contribute for an event that was against his faith. It mas a custom made cake order - so he was entitled to refuse to take the job.
I think, it is very unloving to force people to do something that will make them feel bad about themselves, or feel like traitors to their beliefs.
I am totally pro-gay rights, but for me, none of their rights were being violated by this situation.
15
"He did not refuse to make the cake because the customers were gay, but because the cake was for a gay wedding. "
That makes not sense. He refused to make it because two gay men were getting married because they are gay and were getting married in a gay wedding.
3
So if someone said: According to my religious beliefs Jews killed Jesus Christ so I'm not going to serve Jews ? - would that be protected?
8
Consider this: I believe some who practice Islam prefer not to be in personal contact with menstruating women — doesn’t make sense to me, but I grew up in a different faith. Could that Muslim ask his restaurant server if she were menstruating? If he did, would there be public outrage? Against whom?
Should any Muslim looking customers be asked if they are indeed Muslim to protect them? Still feels wrong, and this decision feels like an endorsement by the most powerful court in the country to discriminate.
As others have written, the baker is in the business to bake cakes, not “save souls” as defined by his beliefs. There are plenty of doctors who have treated criminals and lawyers who defended them even when their crimes go against the beliefs of those doctors and lawyers. Priests hear confessions all the time that must make them choke. It goes with the territory.
As distasteful as I’m certain that must be, that must be. The alternative foments anarchy.
7
The Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissent is correct.
The majority opinion is flawed because higher courts are supposed to look to the result of an inferior tribunal's action, not its reasoning. Jones v. Futrall, 75 F.2d 418, 420 (8th Cir. 1935). Colorado commissioners may have misspoken, but reviewing courts are required to ignore that. It's what they ruled that matters, and only that.
The Gorsuch opinion is flawed because (1) it forgets the foregoing rule, (2) it too easily accepts the view that the same-sex plaintiffs were demanding a cake with a message of celebrating their marriage, and (3) it goes into a needless, barely relevant expiation about tortious and criminal mental states.
The Gorsuch opinion, if it became law, could morph into a rule that as long as a proprietor is thinking they've customized something, they could refuse a public service to any statutorily or constitutionally protected group. E.g., "I'm sorry, but we don't rent motel rooms to you black people, because you bear the Curse of Ham and we put a lot of creative effort into picking out the curtains and bedspreads."
The Thomas opinion is flawed because it too easily accepts the Colorado court's fleeting comment that the same-sex plaintiffs were demanding a cake with a message of celebrating their marriage. It also improperly relies on evidence outside the record (a website).
Finally, the Thomas opinion misspells Arnold Schönberg (or Schoenberg) as Schöenberg! The horror . . . .
7
That quote is actually from United States v. Porter Fuel Co., 247 F. 769 (8th Cir. 1917) and is reproduced in the Jones opinion. It has to do with what courts say in their opinions, not with what they say while sitting on the bench. So I'm afraid you don't make a very good point.
A victory for the First Amendment and freedom of conscience.
Lovers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights should be standing and cheering.
8
Jesus would have baked the cake.
24
No he wouldn’t have. The Bible makes it all very very clear.
2
The New Testament which is the new covenant with does not make that clear at all. As a Christian I place a lot of importance on Jesus' teachings. The Old Testament was before Christ.
1
This is a reasonable decision. No one should be forced to write anything, especially if the words violate one's firmly held beliefs.
7
and this is the same reason why we as an interracial couple have been denied housing, women get paid less than men, very slippery slope!
7
The baker was not asked to write anything. For goodness sake read the opinion.
This opinion relies on an obvious and troubling assumption: That any governmental agency has the power to, and actually can, determine what is a "sincerely held" religious belief. What religious beliefs are held "sincerely" is probably impossible to determine.
There are probably numerous small, obscure "religions" whose beliefs are utterly unknown to most, or are subject to wide interpretation that could be stretched to cover almost any absurd behavior. Someone could say they "sincerely" believe almost anything as part of a religion. Under this standard, if I say I believe something, who is to say I don't? And where does it end?
But in any event, the bedrock of the Constitution is that government is prohibited from determining or testing one's religious beliefs at all, much less whether they are held "sincerely."
12
It was a solid ruling that doesn't actually settle or even address the broader issue weighing first amendment rights of the baker against public accommodation rights of the gay couple except in concurring and dissenting opinions. On that issue four justices indicated favoring gay rights, three indicated favoring public accommodation laws, and the crucial two potential swing votes did not weigh in. I suspect most people advancing opinions on this have not read the ruling.
I'm sure future cases will address that broader issue, all this one does is affirm that the government must be neutral with regards to religion. Taking a hostile position is just as bad as taking a positive one. That's something all sides should be able to agree on.
2
Justices often do not address issues they do not plan to decide in the ruling. I think your straw poll a bit meaningless.
This obtuse and tortured decision which portrays the Baker as the victim, trades away the rights of a minority that Kagan and Stephens apparently values less than “mainstream” religious or ethnic groups. It appears that the Justices apply the law in proportion to political clout. Perhaps Kagan and Stephens were thinking that they could “go along to get along”. Kagan should come back to Boston to read the poem on the Holocaust memorial by German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller. It is about the cowardice of German intellectuals following the Nazis' rise to power and subsequent purging of their chosen targets, group after group:
“First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
Which group will the Court next allow retailers to discriminate against?
15
Religion had nothing to do with the ruling.
1
Congratulations, the court agreed that it is legal for you to be a homophobe based on religious grounds. Under my first amendment rights I can tell you you small minded. They just asked you to make a cake for crying out loud. They didn't ask you to attend, condone their lifestyle or participate in it, just make a cake. Frankly you should have been honored they thought enough of you to ask. What would Jesus do? I think he would have made the cake. Love they neighbor as thy self. Did you miss that one at church?
14
Apparently you don’t attend any church. And by the way, they didn’t just ask for a cake. They wanted one customized. Perhaps you should read the article.
5
I am happy not to attend yours.
2
Show me where they ask that it be customized. Right out of the gate the baker said no because it was for a gay couple.
The Supreme Court got it right the first time, in Reynolds v. United States (1878), when it wrote that "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." Now, the Court has done just that by saying that declaring a sincere belief that violating the civil rights of certain classes of people is a religious duty is sufficient to excuse one's self from the law.
One wonders, now that the court has allowed certain Christian sects to place themselves above the law, will they do the same for a president who claims such a power for himself? I am not encouraged by what seems to be a likely answer.
Heaven help us. Or not.
9
Granted, there are a few principles at play here but, once Jack Phillips said he wouldn't bake the cake, did the couple, come hell or high water, really want to compel him to make it? Wouldn't that be a logical end result to this brouhaha in a Bundt pan, if the case went the other way? I'm not a constitutional scholar by any stretch but this case has always struck me as small potatoes or something as meaningful as a Twinkie. Having it end this way, in the Supreme Court, just gives the religious right and, worst of all, their champion Trump, something to crow about mercilessly.
6
The title of this article, Supreme Court Sides with Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple," is misleading. What the Supreme Court did was say that the decision against the baker by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was tainted by a hostility to religion on the part of one or or more commissioners and that Phillips was thus denied the neutrality toward religion to which he had a right. The Opinion of the Court was written by Justice Kennedy. Among the closing sentences to that opinion, Kennedy writes: "The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."
As others have said, this is a very narrow opinion, although the general commentary is not treating it as such but as a clear victory for Phillips. We can be sure that other cases are going to be following soon that will, as Kennedy wrote, have "a context that may well be
different," meaning that there will not be a lower court decision that can be considered to be prejudiced by hostility on the part of those making the judgment.
1
Justice Kennedy has leveraged a commissioner's truthful statement about the history of religious discrimination into "hostility." Bad arguments always begin with a lie that is further built upon a misbegotten foundation--as Kennedy clearly did here to arrive at a conclusion no law supports.
I guess the Colorado commissioners have no protected free speech; apparently only those who speak of their religion enjoy full 1st Amendment protections.
5
Can you not understand that the Commissioner was suppose to be impartial and unbiased. Instead the baker was subjected to a wild eyed left wing rant... Protected free speech? They sit in a quasi-judicial capacity and are not expected to be tyrants...
1
Does this support the right of citizens not to pay taxes that support of the US military [about 50% of the budget]?
9
So I’m guessing the 7 supremes are ok with people who refuse to sit next to anyone at restaurants, theatres, airplanes, concerts etc., they choose because doing so would be against their religious beliefs - and how about walking or driving next to them on highways and streets and shouldn’t these people be identified? A yellow triangle? Or pink? Green or orange for those religious people just don’t like? Different religions could have their own colors so we can tell which neighborhoods those of us who are hated can and cannot walk. This seems to work so well with gangs. Yes, we’ve only just begun to hate.
9
I can’t help but wonder if the gay couple were marrying in a church or having a religious ceremony. I would love to know their religious beliefs.
1
We had a pretty good idea that this would happen; although there was a 7-2 vote (the caker's argument dubious at best), just ask Mitch McConnell and his friends in the Senate re Merrick Garland's unsavory denial.
6
I think it's ok for a religious sect or religious individual to put up a sign saying "We don't serve blacks, WASPs, irish, Jews, Muslims, LGBT folks, Republicans, women,...etc.
But your church should give up its tax-exempt status. If that is what your community believes it's outside the community benefits that tax exemptions are designed for.
You can't have it both ways. And please put a sign up on your door to warn good people away.
15
Yes!!! Finally someone said it.
4
Sure. And give up tax exemption for institutions, like Wellesley, that discriminate against men. And Grambling, that enrolls a vastly disproportionate percentage of blacks and makes no efforts to recruit whites.
Remember the kerfluffle about Bob Jones University in the early 1980s?
2
Religion had nothing to do with the ruling.
I'm not a lawyer, so I don't fully understand the implications of this "narrow" ruling, but it will be interesting, to say the least, when an inter-racial couple wants a wedding cake baked and the baker declines on the basis that his/her personal religious views prohibit "mingling of the races."
11
That's a veeeery long stretch.
2
I guess the message coming from the Court is that there are "good people on both sides." As for me, I don't think it's legitimate for someone providing services to the public to avoid serving certain customers based on the assertion that his "faith" sincerely requires him to be a homophobe. Time for gays to be recognized as a protected class.
6
No it’s not. There’s nothing special about them. They’re not a privileged group. They’re just people...
1
Just people... who have been discriminated against for decades. Nothing different about them at all.
1
I did not say “nothing different,” because that would not be correct. “Nothing special” is another thing entirely. I prefer to see themtreated as just people....
What's next with this SC, women must wear skirts or dresses, cannot wear makeup, and must walk behind their husbands? This is the most regressive, backwards and disgusting group of people ever assembled pretending to be fair judges of the law.
10
Yes, I'm certain that that is what Kagan intends.
3
This is a boys club, a backward, regressive, and 1800s court. Kagan wasn't put in there by a regressive backwards President, but a progressive one that recognizes women as equal partners to men. Sorry if that it doesn't fit your narrative.
At one time, the Supreme Court was ok with slavery and forced sterilization. Today the court wrote another shameful page of history- I hope to see all citizens treated with respect and dignity which clearly has nothing to do with the private practice of religion.
7
So, does this mean that Christian Scientists will no longer be prosecuted for not providing medical care for their dying child? And can a surgeon, who holds antisemitic beliefs, refuse to operate on a dying man because he is Jewish? How far can this go?
8
Diane L, there is no equivalence between withholding medical treatment necessary to save someone's life and refusing to create a custom cake for a wedding.
1
Because the later might be important in your life. You really need to learn what the work empathy means
Yes, tolerance and acceptance are essential. I just find it a bit ironic that someone defending the person who was not showing tolerance and acceptance toward LGBTQ+ people is telling us this. We have a long history of using the guise of religious freedom to support clearly discriminatory laws. This ruling will lead the way to LGBTQ+ rights being denied on the grounds of "religious liberty" again.
8
You can't cheer the law when you like it, and curse it when you don't. Rights are only meaningful when they apply to everyone.
3
I s'pose if we don't have to bake 'em a cake, we don't have to feed 'em either. We can keep 'em out of our restaurants, movie theaters, --well maybe they could sit in the balcony with the colored folks. Wasn't it great in the 60's when white folks ran the country? My God, what have we become?
12
We’re the same as we always were. America and her citizens were never as never as noble or good as the myth of exceptionalism would have us believe.
6
Although I expressed earlier my admiration of Supreme Court's decision, an afterthought comes to mind: does this decision open a door to such signs in hotels, restaurants, and other services as, for example, "straight white gentiles only" or even "straight white Anglo-Protestants only" ?
6
Did the baker refuse to sell to gays? No.
As a black woman, I want people to be frank and honest with me. If you do not want my business. Please tell me. I will go elsewhere. I am not going to beg and sue someone to take my money. And no, it doesn't make me feel less than. I do not give anyone that power.
But, I understand that governments want to have rules and regulations regarding how people conduct business in their city/state/nation.
With all that being said. I believe the SCOTUS got it right.
12
I think the headlines on this story are misleading.
I could sure go for some cake right now.
2
this was a setup developed by the dems and the scotus sniffed it out i.e. thank you
2
I'm gay, a white man, 61, HIV positive, married to a black man, healthy with good union health care, and I don't care about this. I don't care. If that guy wants to refuse to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple getting married as an expression of his religious fervor so be it. If his devotion is to a god that hates gay people with such transmogrifying depth He would accept this gesture of faith with the same beneficence as a loving prayer, I pity him his god. For the rest of us, the court has limited the impact of this sentimental slur on gay people to this case alone: classic bush v gore cowardice, instead of making good precedent they make a self-limiting bad decision. I'm sure they see it as a healing gesture to the deepening craziness on our country's religious right. So, okay, so be it. It stinks, it's wrong and it hurts, but if it goes no farther in precedent for other rulings, I'm happy not buying items that are the religious expressions of people who pray to a bigoted god.
6
Aren't there words in the bible like "Love thy neighbor" and "tolerance?" And then there's another saying "can't we all get along?" Apparently, only if "you" live and believe the same as I do....oy...
7
The courts should have ruled based on the case, instead of being distracted by their perception of the Colorado commission.
It seems the Supreme Court is not impartial.
9
I will never understand how so called Christians use Jesus as an excuse to discriminate against people who aren't like them. Jesus was the one who said, "Love one another." Jesus never ignored or persecuted other people. It's the "Christians" who are doing it. And now the SC has given them legal ammunition to continue. Oh, the irony. Gay marriage is legal and so is discrimination.
4
Super happy with the Supreme Court these days. Besides this decision and reversing lower liberal courts on the travel ban, I hope it reverses the racist policy discriminating against Asians known as Affirmative Action.
3
I have not seen my comment yet, so I am resubmitting.
1) Open Market, just got closed down, after this poor Supreme Court Ruling. If GLBT and allies, were to follow the ruling today, then the "religious right Colorado Baker group" will get a rude awakening. The most cutting-edge products are made by Pro-Equality people.... thus pro GLBT and allies are in this "product ruling group". No, advanced products will be allowed to be purchased by the religious right. The Religion? Religion of Brilliance. Intelligence is Power.
2) I probably would agree with the Supreme Court, if the Baker had his store, on private property. Not on a public street, public sidewalk, public space... not open to the public. But, he didn't. His store was on public property, open to the public. ----- In the Future, stores that are on public property will have to follow: Formal Business Rules. So, if the Baker said No to the gay couple, he would not be allowed to have a store in public space, at the very least.
The Future looks not only bright for Equality, but Brilliant.
And anyway, this Baker's cakes are awful anyway. Cheap ingredients. yuck. Not art, as he claims.
3
And how - from Charlotte, NC, could you possibly know that his cakes in Colorado are no good?
6
This is not a crisis. There are other bakers that would love the business. If you want to be upset about Trump, you should be very angry that he stole billions from the poor, hid the theft with a temporary doubling of the IRS standard deduction, gave the money and more to the super rich. Oh, and every person in the USA now has a new debt to foreign countries of about $4000. A trillion dollars is a lot of real money and it is our dept. That qualifies reasonable justification to be angry at Trump.
2
So if you belong to a religion that believes that Catholics and Jews are evil, it is now OK to refuse to serve Catholics and Jews based upon your sincere religious beliefs?
There are several churches that teach that African Americans are inferior and should be kept from dealing with whites...now OK to refuse to serve African Americans.
When you have to pass a test to buy something in a public market, that is no longer a free market system.
12
You ignore the background. He would have sold them a cake off the shelf on the spot, he didn't have a problem with that. He merely did not want to be forced to have to DESIGN one for them. The latter involves identifying with the purpose and he did not want to be forced into that.
4
You missed the point. There is no writing on wedding cakes. Wedding cakes come in various sizes and shapes...he does that for all his customers who don't want to buy "off the shelf." In the end the custom cake or the off the shelf cake have flour, sugar, flavor, eggs and some liquid. The couple asked for nothing other than what anyone else would get. They failed his moral test just as a Jew might fail the moral test of certain fundamentalist religions. My religion says that prejudice people are evil so I need the chance to stop selling to this baker because, by my standard, he has done evil.
It is important to realize that the Supremes really ruled againt the constitutionality of the Civil Rights Commission's argument in the case. They might have reached the conclusion more constitutionally, the point made by the dissenting opinions.
To Organized Christian religion - get out of my life and out of my government.
Or start paying taxes on your imminence Real Estate holdings, personal property, publishing companies, schools and travel vehicles including CARS, TRAINS, RV'S, etc and per the "god fearing rich evangelist" in the south, taxes on your JETS!
Organized religion is a BUSINESS that provides services to it's customers just like the joy store/ house down the street.
13
The same government that says you are endowed by the Creator with certain inalienable rights? You want those rights removed?
1
I assume this baker does not sell any of his goods to LGBT individuals since it would be against his religion.
He would need to ask each individual, before each sale of products in his bakery, what their sexual preference is (which would be illegal).
If not then he is a hypocrite.
6
My understanding is that LBGT couples can purchase any items for sale at the bakery. The baker will not bake a cake for a wedding but will sell other items, including cakes.
4
That’s a completely incorrect assumption on your part since he does sell to them.
6
Let's not use the word "preference"--sexual "orientation" is more accurate.
1
For this to have reached the Supreme Court is sheer stupidity. If you walked in my establishment and I didn’t like your shoes It’s my right not to serve you.
8
What the Supreme Court ruled is only this: when an individual objects to a law on the ground that it forces him to violate his religious convictions, then the administrative body considering the claim must observe the very strictest neutrality in deciding the case. In its ruling, the Court cited the Santeria case extensively. This could be useful in future cases to civil rights lawyers who represent religious minorities and others persecuted for their beliefs.
We also found out that only two Justices, Thomas and Gorsuch, thought that requiring the baker to design a custom cake involved compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment, which was at the heart of the argument by the lawyers representing the baker. Only two. This is a relief.
The case could still have horrible ramifications, opening the floodgates to countless similar claims of a First Amendment "right" to discriminate. But it may not. There is no reason to lose heart. The best outcome would be for administrative bodies to be more careful in how they treat the parties who come before them.
9
"...Bake me a cake as discriminatory as you can!"
4
My “religion” is a theocracy based on an innate dislike and distrust of Donald Trump and all of his followers. Can I now post a sign that Trumpers are no longer welcome in my business due to my so-called religion? If I did something that stupid I guess the Supreme Court would support me, customers would hopefully reject my bigoted “religion.” Maybe customers will reject the Colorado baker’s bigoted religion.
My real religion, Reformed Judaism, is one of open acceptance. I am mystified by religions that preach hatred and rejection. I asked a very wise Rabbi once about the troubling passage condemning homosexuality in Leviticus and her response was brilliant. “There are only ten immutable, unchanging laws in the Torah, and these are the Ten Commandments. The Talmud tells us that the other rules are subject to change over time.”
I have studied the teachings of Jesus, and there is one word that resonates throughout, love. Much of my family is Christian, and we all accept each other as we are, Jewish, Christian, gay, straight, black, white, Korean-American. I will bake a cake for anyone who asks. This baker’s version of Christianity is one I think Jesus would not understand. What did Jesus say about homosexuality? Nothing...
11
It is Reform Judaism, not Reformed. Not yet, anyway. And I doubt a Jewish bookshop artisan scribe would be compelled to craft a ketubah marriage contract for two Episcopalians, no matter how lovely they were, or much they wanted it to solemnize their marriage. However, if it was a fill in the blank one already for sale in the store, I imagine they would have to sell it to them. And that's kind of what's going on here, which is what the Court will decide in the next go-round.
1
And what will the Supreme Court say when a baker refuses to sell a bagel to a Jewish customer avancing his "religious" rights ?
The Trumpisation of America touches the core of the Supreme Court.
Now you can image what the Supreme Court will say when it comes to judge the limits of executive privilege, of presidential self-pardon.
4
There's no forced artistic expression in selling a bagel. Thus - no 1st amendment violation.
2
I'll grant Jack Phillips this: Wrapping a bigoted rejection of helping people in a phoney-baloney religious rationale was the way to go in these superstitious and paranoid times.
5
So now an architect can refuse to design a house if he thinks customer is sinful according to his beliefs? How far can this go? Can I refuse to provide the art of my medical services if you violate my scincer religious beliefs?
1
The ruling was more a rebuke of Colorado Civil Rights commission's overzealous advocacy for the gay couple by ridiculing the right of Jack Phillips to have his deeply held religious expression than a victory for the baker.
If someone refuses to bake a cake for a gay wedding, it is not an issue; it is indeed a business opportunity for someone else to start a business baking cakes for all including gay types.
That Kagan and Breyer sided with the majority decision in the instant case is proof that the decision was not a partisan one and must be embraced by all including the bitter liberals.
15
I can't help but notice the elephant in the room that few address and which SCOTUS seems oblivious of: these so called "sincerely held religious beliefs" are the offspring of a prejudiced, narrow reading of scripture that is increasingly challenged by many Bible scholars today. Some of the Bible passages used by religious bigots to justify condemning homosexuality don't condemn homosexuality per se, and certainly not the committed, loving same-gender relationships that we know today. Also, no one questions why these homophobes cherry pick Bible passages while blithely ignoring others. Jesus unequivocally condemned divorce but was silent on homosexuality. Does this Colorado baker also deny cakes to divorced people? Why not?
Forget about "judge not that ye be not judged" and the rest of Jesus' teachings that point towards love and inclusion.
7
SCOTUS didn't, and shouldn't have addressed it because the issue is if the religious beliefs are sincerely held, not their theological accuracy.
3
Let 'me eat cake! As long as they are white, straight, and Christian!
7
Religious beliefs are by definition arbitrary. Equal rights, equal treatment is not. This ruling is opening the door to chaos, wanton discrimination, and legally sanctioned hate.
4
The villains here according to the Supreme Court are the jerks who make up the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. it is startling how many comments here missed the whole point of the ruling and chose to spew anti-religious bigotry here in the pages of the NYT.
14
The battle between religious liberty and anti-discrimination.
No matter which side wins, America will be the loser.
It is a case with high-stakes for our country -- the ruling might appear narrow, but it is wide enough to shove many other discriminatory cases into this frame.
Such cases divide our country and have profound effect on our future. They are best left alone and not be tested in a court of law. For the result will leave a bitter taste for one part of citizenry.
The blame for this rests squarely on the liberals, who are taking big risks litigating such cases. There will be many who are going to be disappointed and their lives affected by the SC rulings on cases like the travel ban, voter eligibility, and unions, coming up next.
1
They are NOT best left alone. If that were the case we would still have slavery in his country. Or Jim Crow. Yes, they will divide and cause bitterness but this is the journey we have all been on since the beginning of the Republic. We had a Civil War over these types of divisions. They define us. And our struggle to come to terms with them over time makes us stronger as a nation Look at the long ark of change. It hurts at first but we are much better off than we were 100 years ago 50 years ago. 20 years ago.
1
Couldn't the baker make them some gay marriage cookies?
This is beyond silly. The court should have sent the case back with instructions.
2
This decision is part of a piece by this court. This is the court that gave us Citizen United, allowing a flood of dark money. If the past is any guide, the court will allow states to continue gerrymandering, which, together with Citizen United, would constitute a body-blow to democracy in America. And now this. The court can frame its decision as a narrow one which also re-affirms gay rights, but outside of the courtroom, this decision will be seen as a green-light for all sorts of discrimination. Bigots will attempt to find a way, no matter how convoluted, to explain their bigotry with religion, as a way to justify it. Shame on Justices Kagan and Breyer for supporting this. (It was to be expected that the conservative justices would decide as they did.)
7
This is wonderful news for freedom of expression. I would never want a baker who is uncomfortable with gay marriage making a cake for my gay wedding.
7
If the Supreme Court relied on the statements of commission members in determining religious animus invalidating their ruling against the baker, doesn't the same apply to candidate and President Trump's statements in determining if there is a religious animus against Muslims behind his travel ban?
5
They said the statements at the hearing. Somewhat different from what Trump may have said during the campaign.
1
Yes.
With 75% of evangelicals supporting Trump, we have clear evidence that their alleged "sincerely held beliefs" are little more than a convenient, but thin veneer barely concealing their true character and motivations. Despite marriage equality, LGBTQ2 people are long way from full equality. This is made obvious when considering how the court would have handled this case if the baker had denied a cake to a mixed-race couple, based on "sincerely held beliefs" against miscegenation, which has biblical underpinnings. In that circumstance, I cannot imagine the court saying that more respect ought to have been given to racist beliefs rooted in the bible.
3
If the baker is adamant in discriminating customers according to his private prejudices, then he should not have a business open for general consumption; he should change to some job where bigotry is not an issue. Can you imagine if he were a pharmacist who, on account of his arrogant stance of 'purity' and sainthood, refuses to fill a doctor's prescribed medication? Wait, this has happened in the real world and in the not so distant past? Why are these prima donnas engaged in public affairs anyway, stupid as they are for their own good? And the Supreme Court, in their 'wisdom', is muddying the waters for no good reason. And not yet conflicted?
4
Funny. I just spent two weeks at a motel where there was a sign at the check-in desk that said,in effect: this business is privately owned and we can refuse service to anyone. I saw a couple of people turned away on different occasions because there was "no vacancy." Maybe there was; maybe there wasn't.
Is our modern Supreme Court really about law? [I know they’re all lawyers.]
Or is it more about philosophy and ideology?
3
Did you note that two voting in favor of the baker were "progressive" judges? The lesson here is that one cannot fight intolerance with intolerance. Both sides need to learn and practice tolerance.
5
I'm reminded of the US in the 1950s, and earlier, when perhaps many had sincere religious objections to mixed-race marriages. They might have been kind to African Americans, but would not have wanted their own daughter to marry one, having a sincere religious belief that such things were contrary to the law of their chosen deity.
The equivalent situation is that the baker or dressmaker or car hire service who said that whilst happy to provide them with a car for a vacation, with work clothes and with scones for tea, they could not provide a wedding dress or cake or wedding car because to do so would imply condoning something they felt to be against their religion.
Since its a simple matter to found a new religion and get a new religious belief, this ruling does seem to open a floodgate, albeit limited to the provision of goods and services for specific events rather than to the people attending or participating in that event. Mr Phillips would presumably also find that his sincere superstition of choice precluded providing a wedding cake to the straight friends of the loving couple who wanted to make that their gift to celebrate the event.
1
It's not the first time. The SCOTUS has always made thise kind of decisions such as the Dred Scott v. Sandford ruling.
2
Why is it unfair and hostile to say that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust"? It was true then and it is true today.
8
Most of those protesting this ruling have probably not read it. I have. Please do the minimum amount of homework necessary before you comments on something. At least read it before condemning it.
Philosophically, I side with the couple on this. But, after reading the court's opinion, I'm comfortable that it is narrow enough so that it wouldn't apply to any other situation. Based upon considerable evidence, the court determined that the Colorado authorities mishandled the matter. Had the authorities in CO handled it properly, the result might have been different.
I actually found the decision to be more encouraging than discouraging about discrimination against people because of sexual orientation. The court went out of its way to emphasize gay rights and the need to uphold gay rights. Even Justice Ginsburg, who dissented, found much to agree with in the ruling.
In my opinion, even though the court agreed with the baker on very narrow procedural grounds, the totality of the ruling actually enhances the protection of gay rights.
3
I would bake a cake for Trump. No, I better not. It would be too tempting to violate my nonviolent principles.
4
So I am publicly sharing my religion with you. It is the Church of D. I alone interpret what my Creator intends, though I will try to convince others of my sincerely held beliefs.
When those beliefs are in opposition to others or to policies, I will cling to my right not to sully my sincere beliefs. Whew. What a burden has been lifted.
8
The cake in question never got to the ordering stage so the baker had no idea what they wanted. What he did know was that he did not like them.
All the legal technicalities aside; I am quite sure that there will be a rash of refusals to help Jews and Muslims, refuse to sell to them and to non-whites, etc.
What I would like to see is for someone to refuse to wait on Justice Thomas because of his skin color, or to provide medical assistance to one of the majority justices because that person does not like their rulings.
Then the ruling might be revisited. The Court could have sent it back for review.
8
Reaction to this ruling is overwrought. It was not even a close call, precisely because it didn’t address the underlying questions of free expression, religious freedom, etc. These questions will surely be decided in future cases, so let’s spare the hyperbole for now.
On the underlying issue, it appears that a majority of commenters support the absolute requirement for all bakeries to serve all customers regardless of the requested message on cakes.
If this view ultimately prevails, then expect an explosion of cake requests like, “Homosexuality is an abominable sin.” for homosexual bakers or similarly offensive sentiments for Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and minority bakers, always celebrating some particular day/event that is sensitive to these groups.
In fact, these are quite mild compared with what extremists will actually request. There will be a toxic “cake war” as extremists of all sorts try to prove points and outdo each other.
Is this really what everyone wants?
5
It was a wedding cake, it did not involve any message to be written, obscene, offensive, sinful, or otherwise.
1
It is not about forcing bakeries to serve all customers regardless of the requested message.
It is simply about whether a baker, who is in the business of baking wedding cakes, can refuse to provide that service only to gay customers.
4
Yes. No prejudice against ANYONE who orders a cake, whatever their race, color, creed, or sexuality.
First, if her posts a sign outside his store that says he will not bake cakes for homosexual unions - that will make his position clear for all. To choose his bakery or not.
Second, we seem to keep missing the point of the foundation of Christianity, not the church and religious leader inspired doctrine but the point of Jesus' teachings. He accepted all - all that the others shunned for a variety of reasons. The court has taken the position that one person's interpretation and protection of religious freedom trumps someone else's legally given rights.
Finally., this is why I practice my Christianity in the closet, because the older you get and the more you have been to church the more you often observe that those who tout their religious beliefs often pursue those beliefs when it is convenient or socially acceptable.
6
"Finally., this is why I practice my Christianity in the closet, because the older you get and the more you have been to church the more you often observe that those who tout their religious beliefs often pursue those beliefs when it is convenient or socially acceptable." Hence, you posted on the NY Times comment thread knowing there would be an audience sympathetic to your anti-fundamentalist viewpoint. Nicely played!!!
2
No I posted on the NYT comments thread because it was relevant to the article. I don't need to have people agree with me or be part of a group that values itself above others. Sounds like you have a guilty conscience and hence the need to label me. I am not playing a game, I am living my life the best way I know how.
This is an alarming decision by the Supreme Court. They've overturned a correct decision by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evidently on the grounds that they did not express enough empathy or respect for Phillips' right to discriminate based his religious beliefs. All who value the separation of church and state should be concerned with this decision. The state sided with a person who practices discrimination based on his religious beliefs -- and against the commission put in place to ensure that the rights of the members of the community are protected. The only bright spot here is the clarity of Justice Ginsburg's dissent. This was a lost opportunity to send Jack Phillips and anyone else who would discriminate on religious grounds that we are a country of laws. Believe whatever you want, but the law of the land prevails.
9
OK, as an attorney with 14 years' experience, including some constitutional law work, I feel the need to educate you on what does and does not constitute separation of church and state in US Constitutional jurisprudence. Separation of church and state means the state/government must refrain establishing a particular religion as state-approved (It's called the Establishment Clause; read your Constitution). Courts have held that means the government cannot grant tax dollars to one particular religion as a form of favoritism, or promote that religion's growth at the expense of others. Separation of church and state has NOTHING to do with a private citizen's actions in his own shop vis-a-vis customers. There may be other grounds for claiming a violation of the customers' civil rights but church-state separation ain't one of them.
4
If the couple went to Mr. Philips with exact specifications of what they wanted on their cake, and he refused to make it, he would have been breaking the law. However, it is my understanding that the couple were seeking Mr. Philips creative design, which is absolutely art. The religious argument made is ridiculous and unnecessary, because an artist cannot be compelled to create something he doesn't want to, period. He did not refuse them service, he refused to use his artistic abilities to create something he didn't want to make.
I think Mr. Philips behavior is awful, and using Christianity as a justification for his homophobic ignorance is gross and hypocritical; the New Testament talks a lot about acceptance, love, and not judging others. And, I never knowingly patronize any businesses that who discriminate. However, not all forms of discrimination are against the law.
3
So, not so different from this case, let’s say a mom and pop restaurant owner refused to make their artful dishes for a gay couple. That’s ok too. Not against the law? Tell that to, um, Woolworths. But not me. You’re wrong.
The only good thing that can come of this is it's implication that these days beliefs and convictions are most influential via the exchange of money. Now as some banks are pulling away from nra money and other kinds of consumerist movements use this tool to express disapproval, the Republicans can't argue a case against it.
According to the majority: (1) other bakers in Colorado refuse to produce hateful wedding cakes, so this baker shouldn't have to sell his wedding cakes to people he hates; and (2) several of the Commission members were mean to the baker during the hearing. Huh? Sounds half-baked to me.
6
It is fair to ask, what do those of us who disagree with this decision think that Phillips should have done when this gay couple entered his shop and asked for a wedding cake?
He should have shown them photographs of wedding cakes he had made in the past and asked them to select one. If they found one they liked, he should have made that exact cake. If they had asked for customizations, he should have replied, "I'm sorry, these are the available designs." If that didn't satisfy them, they were free to look for another baker.
But if they liked one of his standard designs, he was obliged to make it for them. There would be no argument, then, that his artistic freedom or free speech rights were being infringed; he would simply have been producing a product. In fact, if even making a standard cake for a gay couple were too distasteful to be borne, he could take the photograph to another bakery and have them make the cake, which he would then provide to the couple. However, he would not be permitted to tell them he did this, and if the other bakery asked a higher price than he charged the couple, he would have to absorb the difference.
Christian religious bigotry just got a huge boost today. It will be just the beginning of legalized bigotry and racism laws in America. The "Merry Christmas" controversy began this trend and Trump's Office of Religion is another step in the theocratic process. God help us all! Pun intended.
5
The Times recently ran an article about underage girls who are impregnated through molestation and whose deeply religious parents make them marry their molester. I wonder if this guy will bake them a cake.
11
Seems the approach of the Commission might be exactly the reason Trump is in office. I'm a gay atheist but the first to stand up for the rights of others to believe otherwise without being disrespected.
9
Does a vegetarian or a Hindu have the right to refuse to bake a CUSTOM cake (not sell off the shelf) for the Beef Butcher's annual conference?
Can I force a Muslim or an Orthodox Jew to make a cake for my pig roast that says "Happy Pig Roast"?
Does a Christian/Jew/Muslim have the right to refuse to make a CUSTOM cake for a Satanic celebration?
I would say that creating a custom cake specifically directed to the event in question is much more akin to supporting the event than simply selling an off-the-shelf item to someone who doesn't share your beliefs.
Big difference.
10
Your questions betray a spurious argument. The baker was not being asked to do anything that he didn't already do: sell a wedding cake. He just wouldn't serve these particular customers because of who they were. The apt comparison using your ideas above would be an Orthodox Jew with a bakery refusing to serve bagels to a Muslim who wanted to buy some.
1
Nancy, I am not sure that you are asking the questions in the right way. Colorado law does not prohibit a business from refusing to make a particular good or service in general. What businesses may not do is make a product or service for some customers but not for others. That is what happened here.
1
The decision was narrow, and turned on misconduct by the State Commission, but that is not how the public will read it.
The decision will open a floodgate of legislation protecting "religious freedom" as a mask for raw discrimination. The public--especially the MAGA-head Trump supporters--are going to immediately declare that they have "the right" to deny employment, accommodations and services to gay people (and many others) because of their "religious beliefs."
This decision is a major step backwards for civil liberties, and it has opened a Pandora's Box of evil that will require many years of litigation to straighten out.
5
We have moved backwards, not forwards. What if the couple had been black, or interracial, or Muslim, or Jewish, or some other minority that the cakemaker didn't approve of?
In 2018, to refuse to make a cake for someone based on "religious beliefs" proves to me that we still live in the Stone Age. To quote the only word of "President" Trump's that I will allow myself to use, "Sad!"
6
All the parties involved in this case demonstrated their stupidity and arrogance with this case. If the baker had been smart, he would simply have given the gay couple a list of candidate cakes he was willing to make and made it clear that it was a cake from that list or nothing at all. They could then decide whether or not they wanted something from that list or something more he wasn't offering. If the latter, they could go elsewhere to get it. It's not rocket science and the whole "you will give me what I want because I have a right to it" mentality, i.e. that of a spoiled teenager, got very old years ago.
2
This ruling upset me so much I left work right after the news was reported in the NY Times. I stopped on the way home to pick up a plant to cheer me up and told the clerk if she hated gay people because of her religion, she would now have the right not to sell me the plant I was buying because I was gay and promptly burst into tears. It seems in the last two years my country has de-evolved in the United States of Hate and I so wish I could leave here.
7
Please that is not what the ruling meant. It was very narrow and decided on how the lower courts, commission acted. Not whether it was right or wrong.
2
Lordy. You are reacting to a different ruling than the one that came down today! Which was the narrowest possible ruling- specifically that based on statements they had made, the Colorado commission was hostile to religion and therefore couldn’t give the baker an impartial hearing. That’s all! Personally I wish they had ruled more broadly in favor of the baker because although I happily sell MY artful creations to gay people I would absolutely want the right to send OTHERS packing if they were to walk through my door. For instance trump voters. Seriously, we should have the right to say sorry, you don’t get to be a racist or a war criminal or whatever and walk through my door and expect to buy art from me. And that’s that!
2
Really?! You were so upset by this decision to which you are not a party and which will have no direct or meaningful impact on your life that you had to leave work and go home, but on the way you had to pick up a plant to cheer yourself up?! And while you were buying said plant you had to conduct an inquisition of the store clerk's socio-political views?! You're either a great comedian with a phenomenal imagination or the weakest person I've never met.
2
The report in major media is not correct. The case was sent back to the Colorado courts! The Court ruled today that the Colorado courts should re-examine the ruling against a Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery that had declined to provide a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, but solely because the Court concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not act “with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires” when it considered the bakery’s arguments. The Court did not, however, rule that the baker’s refusal to provide services is protected by the First Amendment.
1
Margalo, I don't think that is right. The final line of the majority decision: the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is reversed. I don't think this was sent back for reconsideration.
1
No. If you look at page 16 of the Opinion of the Court, it says "reversed". It does not say "remanded".
1
I seriously wonder what the problem with baking the cake is for Mr. Phillips. By doing so would the doors be closed to heaven on Judgement Day? I hate to use this expression but, who made you God Mr. Phillips?
8
If the sale of a product or service is tantamount to the buyers and sellers sharing a religious belief should't i as the consumer then have the right to request the beliefs I'm agreeing to?
2
If this baker of cakes is sincere about never serving couples who
are gay, perhaps he should warn his victims before they enter his place of business.
I dare him to add that sentiment about gay persons to his
business signs.
4
Where does one draw the line? Say a religion does not permit women to go out without covering your face, and someone who practices the religion decides not to serve a women who does not cover her face? If you are a doctor, can you say you can't treat her because it is against your faith?
Who goes to court for this? Just go to another baker and create a social media post and make bakery shut down. Problem solved.
1
Like so many others here you miss the point. This baker was happy to sell this gay couple any number of cakes. He was unwilling specifically to construct a cake celebrating gay marriage. That should be his right just as another should have the right not to construct an item celebrating some other emblem he abhors, say the Nazi flag.
3
Dear Justice Kennedy, religious faith is a choice; being gay is not.
8
To be expected, only Ginsberg in her dissent got it right.
7
Not a fan of religion, but this isn't a surprise. The couple could've gone to a ton of other bakeries; Mr. Phillips even gave them a list of alternatives. They deliberately refused and tried to turn this into the Trial of the Century, but they failed. Pure arrogance.
13
Let's say a diner owner is well known for the special pasta dishes we whips up on Wednesday nights. You can order off the regular menu, but on this particular night of the week he also offers a custom pasta dish made any way you like it, cooked to order. A black couple walks in, sits down, and tries to order this custom pasta. The owner tells them, "Sorry, I ain't doin' it. Nothing personal, but I don't like blacks. You can order off the regular menu, but I ain't makin' nothin' special for you. There's a few restaurants up the street that might, though. Here's a list of them."
Would you be okay with that?
So, I'm assuming that under this ruling, as an atheist, I would be free to deny service to someone who was a Christian because I think their belief is idiotic and childish and against my creed. Hope that is the case, as fair play is fair play. That's the problem, is Christians in this country only seem to enjoy these kinds of freedoms when they work in their favor, but will scream bloody murder if their is a hint of similar treatment toward them.
7
Next stop America is a theocracy. Time to bail out of this looney bin asap.
7
In short, SCOTUS overturned a finding that an 'act' of discrimination proscribed by Colorado law had occurred because state commissioners voiced opinions that might have been factual but were insensitive to a religious liberty claim by a small business owner, whose service to an LGBT couple, (in this case), violated his sincerely held religious 'beliefs.' No question, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was narrowly (and short-sightedly) decided!
2
I think what’s lost is the intention of the cake. It’s meant to be part of a ritual/ceremony that goes against a bakers fundamental beliefs. I suppose it would be analogous to a Jewish baker willing to sell bread to a Catholic, but not to make bread that is to be turned into the body of Christ because the Catholics messiah goes against his own notions of one to come. Or maybe this analogy is way off...not sure. I’m not as foolishly self-informed as other readers seem to be.
4
The court got it right here for a few reasons. First, Phillips (the baker) never outright refused to serve these men. He refused to create a custom cake for their wedding but offered to sell them other generically decorated baked goods for use at their reception. Presumably he would also have been willing to sell them say a custom made birthday cake. Hence the comparison to racial segregation in restaurants doesn’t apply.
Additionally, I think there’s a difference depending on the good or type of service offered. For example, healthcare or housing is an essential service, while a wedding cake is not.
Furthermore, the hyperbole around this case is ridiculous and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. The plaintiffs claim that they were humiliated but the Constitution doesn’t guarantee that one will never be humiliated. Must a woman go on a date with a disabled or disfigured man so that he won’t be “humiliated” by having his advances spurned?
If this is the epitome of discrimination faced by homosexuals in America, I think it’s safe to say we can afford to focus on more pressing issues like a president who is blatantly flaunting his disregard for the constitution.
11
Religion = Delusion.
I can accept tolerating people's delusions, for the deluded often can't help themselves. Brainwashing is quite effective when started early, and reinforced continually.
We do them no favor by encouraging their warped thoughts. WAKE UP and BAKE THE CAKE.
4
Jesus would have no problem blessing a marriage between two people who love each other.
Because Jesus knew about love.
Preached it.
Blessed it.
Accepted it.
Died for it.
Keep your cake man.
Learn to love as Jesus did.
You can't be holy till you do.
10
It's genuinely disturbing how detached from the facts many comments are. This baker DID NOT deny services to ANYONE based on their sexual identity. He just refused to bake CERTAIN KINDS OF CAKES. He offered MANY different kinds of cakes to gay clients, just not ones related to sexual identity. In the same way that he does not have to bake a cake for a racist bearing racism or a Trump lover lauding Trump or a pornographer bearing profanity, the SCOTUS ruled he was within his rights to refuse to bake such a cake, that the customer could not force him to to do so.
It is totally un-American to suggest that the state can force a small business to bake specific kind of cake it doesn't approve of. Those who want to dictate to this baker, and thus drive him out of business, should think again.
10
I am missing your point. If he bakes more cakes, how does that drive him out of business?
1
Thank you. Yours is the rare rational comment here. It’s deeply disturbing how even those on the liberal side of politics have such poor thinking skills and such a reflexive emotional response.
5
Say it ain't so, Elena.
Make no mistake: this decision by the Court does absolutely nothing to advance the cause of religious liberty in this country, but merely provides legal cover or those who would co-opt religion to underwrite their own bigotry and discrimination against a certain class of individuals.
Mark my words: this will one day come to be seen as the Plessy v. Ferguson of LGBT civil rights jurisprudence.
4
Apparently, Mr. Phillips is so proud of his Christianity, we never see what his particular affiliation is. Is there one? I would hate to think anyone could go grab a religious symbol, wave it saying I don’t like what you’re doing and win a court decision based on religious freedom.
1
What would the same baker do if someone in home construction, healthcare, restaurant business, grocery store business, told him they don’t serve “his kind” here, based on his religion or sexual orientations?
8
This baker was willing to sell his wares to gays the same as any other people. He specifically declined to construct a cake celebrating a gay wedding. It is similar to not forcing a black baker to construct a cake celebrating the Confederacy.
4
The Confederacy celebrated the enslavement of black people. A marriage between two people, celebrates a commitment to care for each other, not enslaving each other or others.
Equal protection also includes religion.
7
With this ruling those who are disabled and covered under the A.D.A. will also be subject to discrimination. i believe this ruling just gutted the A.D.A. act. What has this country come to? We can thank the right wing Republicans for this. Vote them out of office come November and in 2020.
3
A Republican President signed the ADA into law in 1991. Everyone needs to calm down and take a deep breath.
5
A Republican president that reviles the present state of the Republican Party. Our present President makes fun of those who need the protections of the ADA. How much has changed in 27 years
Bigotry won today. I don't care if it's wrapped up in your Bible, it's still bigotry.
10
The new signs we'll be popping up within the week.
No shirt, no shoes, no gays, no Mexicans, no Blacks, no Muslims, no Jews, no immigrants, no handicapped, no service. Only God fearing white Christians need enter. All others not welcome. Have a blessed day. The management, an equal opportunity employer.
Welcome to the new and better United States.
12
I think this case is much more subtle and tricky and ambiguous than many of you. The baker in question is only one example in a continuum. What about a wedding photographer who didn't want to shoot gay marriages. Can you, in effect force people to take pictures of things they don't want to take pictures of? What about say a vegan chef: can the government force them to cook and serve a paschal lamb? Suppose I am in the business of helping people write wedding vows, but I disapprove of, say, Christian marriages: can I refuse to take part in such an exercise? Can a minister be required to oversee a marriage between atheists, or Satanists? (Presiding over such things is, after all, a business: money changes hands.)
Thee are innumerable further examples. I wish SCOTUS didn't have to make such decisions, but I think they made the right one, here (and a divided court made it, let's recognize, across most ideological lines). There's a reason freedom of expression and religion is at the very top of the Bill of Rights.
3
This was not a “divedcourt” in the generally accepted sense; it was a 7-2 decision... Quite strong, really...
2
So let’s go to the end of this: can a “Christian” EMS worker refuse to pick up a someone involved in an accident because the victim is gay and the EMS worker doesn’t want to compromise their religious freedom? Yeah, cake is cake and not nearly as serious as a contusion. But where’s the line?
Here’s the deal: The founding fathers made it abundantly clear that church is church and the state is the state, and never the twain shall meet. Seems painfully ironic that the Pilgrims came here to escape religious persecution and people are still being saddled with other people’s religious viewpoints. Why should my access to custom cake be limited by my viewpoint? In that case, my freedom is being compromised.
1
That was my point, though not express very clearly: I meant that a court that was ordinarily divided came at least partially together for his decision.
A gay baker can discriminate against a Christian who wants to bake a cake do why not the orther way around?
4
This case follows on the “intellectual heels” and “logic” of the Hobby Lobby case, where a “closely held” business was allowed to refuse to purchase insurance that would provide their workers with birth control because it was against the owners’ religious beliefs. This conservative Court will find any reason at all to provide Constitutional protections to businesses in matters of speech (Citizens United), in matters of insurance coverage (Hobby Lobby), and now in matters of the marketplace. When blacks sat-in at lunch counters in the south these same style arguments were not considered adequate to curtail their civil rights to access service. But today, under the hammer of evangelical Christianity everyone will be required to kowtow to religious intolerance or else. As in “Animal Farm”: All animals are equal, but some are more equal than others. In today’s iteration: businesses carry more weight and have more civil rights than individuals. Next up are abortion rights, which will fall because the state regulates the “business” of medicine and some will regulate it in a way that supports certain religions’ beliefs over other forms of belief and they will cover it with the fig leaf of patient protection. The Fed’s already do this with the gag rule.
5
The Colorado Commissioner expressed the historic truth that is (and should be) taught in every history class. Religion was used to justify enslaving Africans. Religion was used to justify the Holocaust. It's documented fact.
I fail to see how the Commissioner's statement quoted in the majority opinion denigrates Christianity except from the point of view of revisionists who want to sweep evils of the past under the rug.
This is an appallingly myopic decision--and not just because of the narrow framework.
4
Religion was used to justify the Holocaust?
We might have different definitions of 'documented facts'.
4
The Hobby Lobby case was basically an economic choice by the owner who used religion to justify his choice. This case uses religion to justify bigotry. Consumer boycotts have a way of fixing inequities. My guess is that this person will relocate his business soon...
2
Supposing I own all the food stores in the U.S. and decide you cannot buy food unless you have the same religious beliefs as I do? Everyone is still free to believe what they want, but they will starve.
5
This all could have been avoided if the plaintiffs had mitigated their damages by finding a baker who would bake them the cake of their dreams. They could even have saved themselves the money by going to the frozen cake section of the local supermarket and then put whatever they want on top of the cake of their choice. Instead they had to make a big Supreme Court case of their frivolous law suit which was just a waste of time and money for all involved.
7
that's an absurd way to looking at it, by caving into the haters and bigots.
4
No, it's called being a grownup. They deliberately created a Constitutional case so they could make a statement. And now they have one they don't like. Stupid and arrogant is all it was.
1
Ed, the plaintiffs didn't make it a federal Supreme Court case. The baker did by appealing the Colorado decision to the Supreme Court.
It is not clear to me from a procedural standpoint why the gay couple should have lost due to misconduct, if you will, by the state commission, particularly if the gay couple didn't advocate for such misconduct. The normal procedure in cases of lower court misconduct would be to vacate and remand the decision for a do-over by the lower court with instructions about not engaging in the conduct that the Supreme Court found inappropriate. Here, it seems that the Supreme Court would have affirmed if the state commission had come to the same conclusion without engaging in misconduct. I understand, however, that the Supreme Court cannot assume what conclusion the state commission would have reached. I am surprised therefore that the Supreme Court did not remand the matter for further proceedings.
4
I commented too quickly. The baker's case was against the commission, not the gay couple, so perhaps a remand was not required to give the commission a second bite at the apple. Clearly the commission lost, not the gay couple. It seems to me that the baker cannot take much solace in his victory, and the gay community should not be deterred at all by it.
2
As for all controversial SCOTUS decisions, I suggest that all interested can benefit by reading it before commenting: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.
1
Couldn't he have compromised and made them cupcakes?
2
Yes. But that wasn’t acceptable to the couple, although acceptable to the baker.
2
The timing of this decision is unfortunate, since it's happened just as cities throughout the country are preparing for their annual Gay Pride observances.
4
I’m sure in the great gay tradition the party will go on.
2
If you don't want to make cake for people based on your "religious beliefs" you have to go all in. No cake for adulterers, no cake for those who don't totally rest on the sabbath. No cake for people who don't follow every rule in the Bible.
This case was full of ... cake batter from the beginning. And SCOTUS put a little bit of whipped cream on top instead of frosting but still they have now opened the door to people using their "religion" for intolerance and discrimination.
I wonder if Clarence Thomas' vote would have been the same if the baker had refused to make a cake for a mixed race couple.
6
No. The proper analogy would be declining to bake a cake CELEBRATING adultery. The court would have sided with the baker on that, too, and rightly so.
1
Every time someone refers to this type of case as being about religious "freedom" I just want to scream. Its just about having the "right" to discriminate against people who's rights they disagree with them having. It our growing racism in this country we will be hearing from those offended having to serve "Sons of Ham" or the "killers of Jesus" and so on. Dangerous precedent that I HOPE is limited to this case.
5
My religious convictions are such that I cannot hire or do business with Republicans. Thanks to the Supreme Court I won't have to.
14
Come on everybody, how many times have we seen something like this? He's going to be coming - out on Ellen in two years.
3
Stop spreading the slander that it is mainly gays who oppress other gays.
What galls me is that this Christian baker had no issue with making a thrice married serial philanderer President.
This is case is all about Evangelicals’ desire to make the bigotry which forms the basis of their religion legal. Mark my word once they enshrine legally bigotry against gays in the name of their religion, they’ll move on to other minorities.
As much as homophobia is an integral part of Evangelicalism, so is racism. Most Evangelicals are Southern Baptists, a religion solely created to provide a theological justification for slavery.
If you need a reminder of how racist Evangelicals are, just look at how they reacted to the election of Obama. I wouldn’t be surprised if a return to Jim Crow is up next for Evangelicals. Lord knows Trump and the GOP will fully support that.
12
What's the difference between this and refusing to serve black people? Let's remember that the bible condoned slavery.
10
The Bible did not condone refusal of food to slaves.
1
So then, non-Christians can refuse to sell their products to Christians on grounds of religious beliefs? 'Cause it sounds to me like this ruling is opening the door to swing both ways.
7
Biblical Christians under Acts 5:29 can disobey man. and their laws if they try to force us to accept and do things that clearly violates God's word.
Now I'll ask a business first, before buying from them,is this a place that God has deemed anti gay? This is good to know, if someone is like this, judging people for who they love, calling it a bad thing. Now I want to be a straight person with a bakery, for gay weddings. Hear that Colorado, someone should do this, show people how to treat everyone with kindness, all inclusion.
3
The ruling begs the question: now what if the other bakers in town follow suit and based on the grounds deny the couple a cake? When does it become injurious or flat out bigotry?
2
I am not sure where this stops. This was a baker. Last year (post-Trump) there was a Court Clerk who refused a gay couple a marriage license on the grounds of her religious beliefs. There are other professionals who hold similar beliefs. I think they need to publish who they will provide their business services to and who they will not. Signs should be on their businesses so that customers can decide whether to patronize these businesses or not. I certainly want to know if I cam going to be refused before I am!
12
yep, Pandora's Box has been opened by those 7 foolish justices.
5
I find this upsetting. I have just returned from a (gay) wedding where I read Justice Kennedy’s famous words in granting same sex couples the right to marry just a few short years ago. I find it disconcerting to read that the same man ruled in favor of bigotry. While I understand that law is complicated, the irony is not lost on me.
2
A lawyer’s perspective: While I don’t agree with the ultimate outcome ... there is much in this ruling to respect:
(a) Every Justice - all 9 - agreed that “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth”... laws thus “must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given GREAT weight and respect by the courts”. That’s real progress!!!
(B) All 9 Justices agreed to the concept that state laws can - and should - protect gay people “in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public.” Nice to see that “all people have the right to be treated equally under the law”) re-affirmed in this current political climate.
(C) Justice Gorsuch wrote that “the Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all.” Seems difficult words to walk away from when the next case before him involves laws (or maybe an immigration ban) based upon the faith of Muslims ... or Jews or Satanists.
PUNCH-LINE: while today’s decision allows this baker, in this unique context (where gay marriage was not yet legal in Colorado) to not be fined when he refused to bake a custom wedding cake, its application tomorrow may well be to protect all faiths.
4
They happned to ignore past precedent(1967) interracial marriage case. Beleifs win out over human rights and facts. These justices need to back to law school.
1
This is a very narrow decision and is unlikely to be used as a precedent in future decisions. Most of the comments rely on slippery slope arguments which are logical fallacies.
There will be more of a practical effect on how the decision is portrayed in the media. Declaring it a victory for the baker and his religious beliefs will create more of a problem and engender more cases. "Hostility" seems to be an important concept in the decision. Public officials have more restraints on them than private individuals when it comes to civil rights.
We are going to be faced with the practical matter of hidden vs. open hostility and discrimination. The baker could have refused for an infinite number of reasons but he chose to be open about his beliefs. Hence, a cause of action. The public official could have been less definite in his expression of hostility to religious beliefs. Case ends with no appeal or nothing for SCOTUS to reverse.
What will matter in the end is effective moral persuasion and not legalistic arguments or slippery slope logical fallacies.
1
On NPR this morning, when the story broke, the baker was referred to as a "Christian" by the reporter. I want to make one thing clear: He is not a true "Christian." He is hiding behind his own brand of Christianity which is very scary, very narrow, and not at all what Jesus had in mind. Reporters need to make that distinction when they continue to label him as a "Christian."
8
You don't get to determine who is a Christian and who is not, thankfully.
4
I am appalled. This ruling pretty much condones discrimination on religious grounds. Whatever happened to the separation of church and state? No one was asking the baker to entertain gay couples in his home, or participate in a gay ceremony. The gay couple was merely requesting the same right to a commercial transaction -- i.e., the purchase of a wedding cake -- afforded to every other couple. Ergo, I disagree with the court's reasoning that the state of Colorado was infringing upon his religious freedom by enjoining him to bake the cake.
6
Suppose a Muslim baker refused to make a cake for a Christian wedding. Can any of you imagine people still arguing that the people buying the cake were in the wrong? Of course not.
8
Obviously, the court ignored this and other possibilities in their over zealous quest to establish religion and personal beliefs as the mainstay in law making and judicial reviews.
1
I dunno.
Those cakes (fabulous!) look pretty gay to me.
5
This is no different than Iran’s Sharia Law which the U.S. gov’t self-righteously condemns. You cannot discriminate —take away a person’s basic rights— based on religious grounds!
5
Does this mean that gay people are free to refuse service to heterosexual couples?
4
Sure. If they want to deny themselves the chance to make a living from 95% of the population. They might be free but they'll be struggling to make a profit and without profits businesses don't last very long.
Since there is obviously no fair way to tell if a statement is a "sincere religious belief", I can't see how this won't end up allowing anyone to discriminate against anyone for any reason (except for the federally "protected classes", at least).
As a lawyer, can I deny Republicans representation in a voter suppression claim, but serve Democrats?
As a doctor, can I refuse to treat people who are too old for my liking? or too hairy? or too sick?
As a restaurant, can I refuse to serve anyone wearing blue? how about anyone who, in my religion-addled mind, have the wrong "aura". how about people with big lips (not technically a protected class)?
This is worse than a slippery slope, it's just a cliff.
Either we need to go back to laissez-faire (no), or we should make "human" a "protected class"
3
Apparently you can have your anti-gay cake and eat it too--tastes like Trump.
8
What is the name of his religious faith?
1
Odd how someone can claim a Christian "deeply held religious belief" about homosexuality, when Christ himself had absolutely nothing to say about the subject.
One might even say that he and his followers are "using" Christianity as a smokescreen to support abhorrently bigoted views which are completely antithetical to it's principals.
Apparently, "deeply held religious beliefs" can be made up whole-cloth now. Pulled from thin air to suit whatever particular injustice you want to inflict at the time.
What is the legal definition of a "deeply held religious belief" anyway? I suppose that now, it's whatever (previously) illegal action you want to get away with.
9
Im starting to worry about being Jewish.
7
step-
be careful with your words.
many orthodox jews do accept gay marriage;
Unfortunately, the orthodox community and clergy generally does not.
However, the orthodox community does not have a monopoly over jewish values
and non religious jews like myself are accepting...
antisemitism is alive and well and sadly i share gerald’s fear.
The only American faiths that formally in their religious laws sanctify gay marriage are Episcopalians, Evangelical Lutherans, and Reform Jews. That represents about 5 million Americans. Let’s not overlook the hypocrisy, Comments, of condemning Islamophobia and the illegal immigration of Latinos when neither Islam nor Catholicism - and Orthodox Judaism - support gay marriage.
Me too.
I have studied and taught this case.
Other than the justices' own religiosity, there is no legal or rational basis for this absurd decision. Deny as they may, it opens the door for general privileging of religious belief over secular societal rights.
Had the decision gone the other way, we would have a clear precedent: Using religious belief to deny public accommodation is always wrong.
Because of this decision, there will be no clear precedent. It is very difficult to imagine where the line will be drawn as more and more individuals use their religious bigotry as justification for denial of services or civil consideration.
The argument that baking a cake is tantamount to a "message of support for same-sex marriage" is ridiculous. If I required a litmus test of those to whom I have provided services over my lifetime, I would have provided very few services.
8
What is the religious "faith" at issue? Matters of faith relate to those religious beliefs that cannot be proven such as there is an all-knowing, all-seeing supernatural being that rules over the universe or that Christ was the son of God, that his conception in the Virgin Mary was immaculate and that he rose to heaven three days after his crucifixion to join the Heavenly Father in the Holy Trinity. Those things are matters of faith. No one would deny the baker his right to these beliefs, and compelling him to bake a cake for a gay couple doesn't infringe on such beliefs. Being anti-gay marriage has nothing to do with faith. Rather, it is a social position often adhered to by religious people. I think courts need to stop assuming that these social positions equal a religious faith belief. I realize that religious beliefs are highly personal but at some point people should not be allowed to claim religious beliefs just because they don't approve of someone else's lifestyle.
1
Will Mr Phillips be turning away idolaters, customers who use the word "God" in vain, customers who fail to holy the Sabbath day, customers who fail to honor thy father and mother, customers who kill, customers who commit adultery, customers who steal, customers who bear false witness against thy neighbor, customers who covet thy neighbor’s wife, customers who covet thy neighbor’s goods? Not likely because, if he did, he probably wouldn't have much business.
Personally, I wish all business owners of Mr Phillips ilk -- those who want to legally discriminate based upon their so-called religious beliefs -- would put signs up on the doors of their establishment saying as such. I would gladly take my business and my money elsewhere.
7
Isn't it already taking the name of God in vain to claim that He wouldn't want you to make a cake for a gay couple? What an empty use of God's authority.
Looking thru the comments, everyone needs to remember how they feel right now about this decision and why Supreme Court appointments are so important. This is why voting at the Presidential and Senate level is so important.
Millions of religious people in this country (mainly evangelicals) remembered how they felt after the 2015 Supreme Court decision around same sex marriage. That propelled them to vote for a President that didn't share their principals or beliefs but they knew he could deliver a Supreme Court pick for them as well as many, many conservative judges. And he has delivered.
I am not saying to give up your principals or beliefs like they have. But I am saying that voting is very, very important.
7
So religion is more important than civil rights? I thought we had separation of church and state. We don't.
5
For those who dismiss the, rather narrow ruling, of the
Supreme Court what does the First Amendment
mean to you ?
Let us suppose Mr. Philips did make the cake and he did,
apparently, a rather poor job of it because his heart was not
in it.
Could the couple sue him ?
On what grounds - failure to provide aesthetic satisfaction ?
Not according to most of the commentators who openly
despise Mr. Philips - for whatever he does to make a cake
a wedding cake, is not art in their eyes.
Who would be the final arbiter of whether Mr. Philips did
a good job or not and thus deserve to be paid ?
Should it not be the couple that ordered the cake ?
As such, does not such an agreement go both ways ?
Just as they can refuse to shop or buy cakes from Mr. Philips
should he not have the right to make wedding cakes for
whom he so wishes and no court should force him to
go against his conscience ?
The First Amendment forbids the governement from
forcing anyone to go against their religious/moral beliefs.
Be it Jehovah Witnesses not saluting the flag, or
Hutterites refusing to fight in a war or simply
a Muslim Baker closing shop on Fridays, a Jewish Baker
closing shop on Saturdays or a Christian Baker closing
shop on Sundays.
The intolerance, insults, thrown at Mr. Philips,
in those comments,sadly many of them 'Times Pick"
only confirms why the 1st Amendment is needed.
The moral rights of minorities no matter how despised,
must be respected.
5
Mr. Brown: "The moral rights of minorities no matter how despised must be respected."
If your moral values offend my moral values then I can refuse you service, and if you are in great pain and I am the only dentist for 100 miles around then you are just out of luck. Sounds good to me.
Moral integrity is always better than decent, civil behavior it would seem, even if the morals are utterly delusional.
1
Thanks, protest voters! Are you beginning to understand that your purity has consequences? A mere taste of the future to come; this conservative court's influence will be felt for decades.
8
The losing side will undoubtedly, and correctly, point to the narrow and fact-bound nature of the opinion.
But today the court reiterated an important principle that was seemingly vanishing in our modern society: that sincerely held religious views and matters of conscience, no matter how objectively silly (as they frequently are), are not to be belittled.
Moreover, as much as the holding that the Colorado commission members were basically religious bigots is seemingly narrow, I'm not so sure that the impact of the case will actually be so. I honestly don't think that the types of people who typically populate these boards can help themselves when it comes to expressing dismissive contempt for religion. Time, and probably a lot of litigation costs, will tell.
7
Hmmm. And what of the consciences of the gay couple? Or their sincerely-held religious beliefs (if they have such)? They clearly do not matter. So much for the 1st and 14th Amendments.
2
Let's imagine the shoe on the other foot, and the baker asked for a cake with an anti-gay slogan on it...does he have the right to refuse?
The SCOTUS decision has me totally befuddled. It almost sounds like the bakery owner won on a technicality. There are lots of behaviors that are based on "sincerely held religious beliefs", like child marriage, polygamy, spousal abuse, genital mutilation, honor killings, etc. but they are considered crimes here. The fallout from this will be interesting.
4
I believe that any merchant must be compelled to sell in-stock inventory to all comers, subject to other laws such as age.
Someone however, should be protected from having to create something that doesn't already exist. Put another way, a crafts-person should be protected from using their creativity in a manner they don't desire. Admittedly there are fine lines even in that situation.
The decision was very light on case citation. A decision breaking new ground probably should be narrow in order to learn practical implications. Even Brown v. Board of Education was limited to schools. Over the ensuing years there were similar decisions desegregating beaches, public pools and other similar facilities.
Given that this was a 7-2 decision, look for a broadening of speech rights and a narrowing of the rights of discrete minorities such as the GLBTQ community.
1
I feel incredibly put out that the Colorado panel seems to have been made up of jerks.
That said, regardless of what a lot of you and Nina Totenberg say about the narrowness of the decision, the end result is that two people who loved each other and wanted to get married to enshrine that love, got rejected by a guy whose religion, he says, tells him, that gays and lesbians are sinners. Where in all of this is the New Testament?
And for every left-winger who may not be grasping the "narrow" argument, I'll bet there are equally as many (if not more) Republicans who are saying that SCOTUS has just backed them a hundred percent in their vile hatred of LBGTQ people.
6
"Where in all of this is the New Testament?"
Romans Chapter 1.
5
They were still able to get married to enshrine that love. They just weren't allowed to force one specific baker to make them a cake.
5
A cake, unless bearing letters or signs that it is for a gay union, interracial it inter-religious marriage, is silent.
Will the next decision legalize (your faith, skin color, sexuality)-free housing?
Nobody is blind to what the court has said.
The boss or supplier now has the rights once guaranteed workers, renters, home buyers.
The concept that restaurants, hotels, housing, public services, anything and everything now belong to the “person” which was once required to serve all equally.
Don’t like something? Make up a faith against it.
1
Too bad! Baker does not seem to have good business acumen..imagine the opposite...he would become a much popular baker and his business would jump high.
1
Context is key here. Many gay rights groups have gone on record in the past to write friend of the court briefs in controversial cases like allowing openly gay men to become Boy Scout Leaders. I think there is a realization that this can boomerang. It would be pretty easy for a group of 100 Evangelicals to join a gay rights group and quickly take a vote to take over the Board...and vote to disband.
Respect is a two way street. This case isn't a green light for anyone and everyone to use religions as a weapon, but it's more line with the Hobby Lobby SCOTUS decision that says if you are sincere in your long held religous beliefs, members of the AltLeft can't stomp on your head, or your business.
8
If you support the baker's right to run his business as he feels, then for consistency, if a large demonstration occurs in front of his store on a daily basis that also is fine with you. Since everything is about strongly held beliefs.
I hope Mr. Phillips doesn't serve people wearing clothes woven of two different kinds of material. Or, use flour in his cakes that come from wheat fields with other things growing in it. Because if he did, he would be in violation of his own "deeply held religious beliefs", and, therefore, a big fat hypocrite.
Then again, perhaps it's just his hatred of homosexuals that is a "deeply held belief". It certainly doesn't qualify as a Christian "religious belief", as Christ said absolutely nothing homosexuality. Not a word.
More than likely, Mr. Phillips and his supporters made up their "deep beliefs" out of thin air, in an attempt to pass off their "deeply un-Christian" views of bigotry as piety and virtue.
From what I've seen and heard, Mr. Phillips and his supporters are about as "Christian" as Pontius Pilate.
9
Don't have him bake for you and don't eat his cake.
8
It certainly is a store all fair- snd equality-minded people should boycott.
Maybe loss of business will teach the owner that one of the highest crimes in this country’s evolved philosophy of controlled capitalism is that business owners shouldn’t deny service to people because they have no interest in living as the customers do, or looking like them.
Nobody considers a cake from even the trendiest baker an endorsement by anyone of their lifestyle.
If you are open to the public, you should sell to the public. Could I refuse service to Mr. Phillips for being a bigot?
7
He was willing to sell anything in the bakery to the plaintiffs in this case. He was not willing to design, bake, and decorate something new for them that celebrated a ceremony that he contended went against his deeply held religious beliefs. This is a distinction that matters and is often lost to those who seek to portray the baker as an all purpose bigot who refused to serve lgbt customers. He made no such broad refusal.
4
I didn’t realize hatred was a religion.
10
After reading posts, saying The Lord will prevail, God this and God that. This tells me, I don't want anything to do with a God that believes that a person's choice to judge and deny service of goods to someone, just because of their choice of love & marriage, is a crime of this God.So this God doesn't want you to bake a cake etc. for someone that loves another human being. This is actually only aimed at one group of humans.It's obvious Jack Phillips knows the couples are gay, does Jack turn away anyone else? Jack can only see who to deny service to, by the detail in their choices but doesn't know if he's baked a cake for pedophiles, rapists,etc. So does Jack believe, it's better to serve anyone at all, but someone that loves a person of the same sex? Thank you Jack, I don't want anything to do with a bigot God!
2
To help reduce discrimination against same-sex couples in the public space—
We need a new and similar public accommodation case to be put before the Supreme Court for a broader ruling.
[The Supreme Court knew it was being asked for guidance in this important accommodation issue, and yet it still decided to respond with a very narrow ruling.]
2
Think good and hard before getting married.
Think twice before hiring a straight baker, especially if your gay.
1
The examples given of a Jewish baker being required by law to bake a cake with a swastika..or a black baker being required to bake a requested cake for the KKK are spot on. Beyond that..why can't the baker adhere to his religious beliefs and be left in peace? No one who is self employed is required by law to work for any potential customers.In the contract work I've done as a self employed contractor..some companies even post the names of individuals and businesses who refuse to pay their bills for work done in order to help out other contractors from learning the hard way.Even those not self employed do not necessarily have to show up for work by any law! The baker also stated that he doesn't bake adult themed or Halloween cakes...why should he be forced to do so against his beliefs? If you were a same sex couple ..why would you want to pressure him to do something he felt was wrong...esp when so many other bakers would be glad to do it ? Like Rodney King said..."Can't we all just get along?"
6
We, as a people, are becoming less and less religious. Kids want nothing to do with the old man in the sky. Why are are our laws marching backwards?
The Supreme Court is theater, nothing more. Laws must reflect the will of the people or out come the pitchforks. Period.
2
No, that’s the theory of the Tyranny of the Majority and its demagogic dictators.
Democracy is the theory that laws exist to protect us all, especially from that tyranny. After all, only identifiable minority group members (ethnic/pigmentation, gender, religion, the latest: gender identification and sexual preference) need protection.
The white Evangelical Protestants, looked upon by other Protestants as the most orthodox, therefore ‘better’ have their ‘Christians are tired of being stepped on’ line. This populist ‘majority’ claims special privilege, which resonates with many non-Evangelicals because of repetition of The Big Lie that what they have lost to the wealthy, good jobs with good salaries, was really stolen by “minorities”.
We once considered a merchant’s premises as one step down from a public forum. Customers could be required to behave, but beliefs and bigotry by the businessman fell before the right of all customers to buy what was offered: custom cakes were offered at one shop, but for dessert at a weddings of two guys, because, the owner says he’s religiously opposed. Unless a cake bears writing or symbols which can always be applied later, it is not speech, and is not served with the maker’s name displayed. Providing fancy desserts does not endorse a belief, nor is a cake ‘ceremonial’.
But this is the new rule: next will come denial of hall rentals, housing, and we will soon be back to where we were a century ago, when even a paper majority crushed all else.
Yeah let’s have these self-selecting “Christians” refuse to make cake for ALL abominations! (All from the Old Testament so don’t be dragging Jesus Christ into this.)
Here some of the other things also called an “abomination” in the Bible:
Egyptians eating with Hebrews;
having an image of another god in your house;
sacrificing your child to the god Molech;
having sex with your wife when she is menstruating;
taking your wife’s sister as a second wife; and
eating pork.
Banned likewise is wearing mixed-fabric clothing, interbreeding animals of different species, tattoos, mocking the blind by putting obstacles in their way, and trimming your beard.
Religions just add their own prejudices anyway.
America is gone.
3
This decision is as repulsive as Citizens United.
6
I understand the Court’s desire to draw a fine line here, but I am afraid they have created a fine mess by issuing this ruling along a “long held religious belief” defense.
In our country, many large hospitals have religious affiliations. For instance, Sisters of Mercy operate many hospitals affiliated with the Catholic Church.
The Catholic religion has favored certain long-held beliefs, many for thousands of years. These beliefs are unequivocally “long-held” and sincere. Included in these beliefs is the natural propagation of human life. (I am avoiding the current gay marriage, birth control issues in this discussion).
The Church, and by extension, these hospitals feel artificial fertilization is morally wrong. A mortal sin.
So let’s say a pregnant mothers shows up at the door of one of these hospitals requiring an emergency delivery. Or even a planned delivery.
Would the decision of this case protect the hospital for denial of service should the parents make an error and let it slip their baby was not naturally conceived. If service is denied, it would be based on a long held religious belief, the same as the Colorado baker. Each hold a civil license to perform certain services to the public. Yet both now have an excuse for following their religious beliefs.
1
If someone wants to be biased, that’s their business. But could they please stop justifying their bias / hatred in Gods name. Doesn’t anyone have an original thought anymore, and maybe even take ownership for it? Please, stop the hating because God said so.
4
I see validity on both sides. Quite simply, you can not deny goods or services to certain groups, yet at the same time you should not be forced to engage in a ceremony or belief system you do not hold.
Why not a simple compromise? I will make you a cake, I will not write language endorsing same sex marriage. I won't adorn it with same sex groom & groom, etc. You are free to do so, its not my business. Similarly, a DJ or photographer might decline to attend a ceremony they don't believe in.
Without reasonable compromise, there is not 100% liberty for one person without taking some liberty from another.
3
The Dread Scott decision was also a 7-2 decision. Also dead wrong. Wonder if the justicies realize they will go down in history the same way with this.
7
After Trump's Coronation, they'll be permanently removed. It won't matter.
1
I'm black. Just because the presumption is that gay people may be able to hide their sexual orientation from the public if they want to doesn't mean that they don't feel the same oppression inside. It's different when you can't pass to avoid prejudice, but that doesn't mean people don't feel it the same. I don't see too much daylight between a decision that a black man can not ever be a citizen of the USA and a decision that two gay men cannot be served like every other customer in a business operating to serve the general public, just like Blacks could not be served at lunch counters serving others and could not share the same spaces as others. One man was denied his rights to citizenship that every non _insert minority status here_ man could achieve with the same credentials as he. These men were denied services that every other non-gay couple would have received...because his faith. Would it be ok if my religion barred me from providing services to serve straight white people? What if it's not a religion but just my belief? Does the US Constitution's first amendment codify religion as some higher field of thought than a strong belief?
Comparing this to the Dred Scott decision is laughable. Apples and oranges, to say the least. The liberal tendency to equate slavery and anti-black animus to anti-gay sentiment never cases to amaze me. Remember laughing out loud when liberal law professors at USC Law School made the same comparisons and when challenged by black students would backtrack and try to obfuscate what they said for fear of offending black students.
1
What stopped the baker from subcontracting the work to another baker? Handling subcontracting logistics is not expressive activity.
1
What kept the two gay men from taking their business elsewhere? It wasn't like he was the only baker they could go to. Not taking sides or necessarily agreeing with his views but they created a legal case where there was no need to do so. And now they have lost.
1
Any religion that teaches "only our beliefs are correct" is useless. The message of all religions, at their core, is love and acceptance. Human beings do not need help to hate each other. That seems to come very easily. They do not need help to be ego-maniacs.
Freedom of and from religion, under the law, is a strong premise of the founders of this country. That the highest court in the land said otherwise is simply terrible. The Justices allowed their own personal beliefs to sway their opinions and that should never be. Thank you, Mitch McConnell, for holding the Supreme Court hostage so you could get your way. This must be a very happy day for you and your ilk. How horrible.
As a straight, white, older female, I find this decision another version of Citizens United. It will take a few years but discrimination, under the law, will come back again to haunt us and we will all be the worse off.
6
As much as I’m no fan of McConnell, Scalia wouldn’t have been a liberal vote. For that matter, neither were Justices Breyer or Kagan in this instance.
If I was a partner in a gay relationship, I would not want a baker who was anti-gay making my wedding cake. Just saying.
5
Everyone who is decrying the government's inability (in this case) to force a private business owner to make a cake he doesn't want to would probably throw a tantrum if a Republican legislature passed a law that private businesses must allow guns inside. Private businesses should be generally free to do what they want. Once you set the precedent that private businesses are subject to the political whims of the day, it just becomes a line drawing exercise, and that will often lead to results you don't like. The free market should handle bigoted business owners. Not the government's soldiers.
4
I'm as liberal as they come, but all through growing up I was very familiar with the sign I saw in every establishment I'd ever been in: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." Why bother having this sign if the business owner can't exercise it? To me, it has nothing to do with whether or not the customers were gay. The business owner shouldn't have to give a reason.
10
In feeding the multitude with five loaves and two fish, I don't recall that Jesus denied food to anyone because his beliefs forbade him from serving a gay person or a person of another faith. Is this baker perhaps trying to be holier than Jesus himself?
4
It’s concerning that so many comments don’t acknowledge what the Supreme Court said. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission made derogatory comments about religion, depriving the baker of a fair hearing, and so the state ruling was not upheld. That’s it. The Supreme Court actually indicates that discrimination against the two gay men is not legally acceptable. We will never make good progress if people prefer to fly off the handle with only their dearly held opinion without consideration for the facts. (But we are sure happy to criticize President Trump for doing this.)
I find the entire situation more sad then anything else. I can empathize with both the baker and the men, respecting the baker’s religion and the men’s right to have a cake. What is really lacking here is human kindness and consideration, leading towards a resolution. If I was the baker, I would have given in and baked the cake. If I was the two men, I wouldn’t have asked.
5
Except for the fact that "religious freedom" was never about allowing people to discriminate in the name of religion. It was instead, about protecting people FROM religion. Our forefathers are probably rolling in their graves about now (due to this and this entire debacle of a so-called administration).
6
I think the headline should read: Supreme Court Splits Hair.
3
I would prefer had the Supreme Court ruled otherwise. However, this is what we get from putting conservatives into power, so we've essentially brought this on ourselves. As ye sow ...
Just wait until one christian refuses to serve a person from a different christian religion because of heresy. Then SCOTUS will really be in a bind trying to figure out whose religion has more rights.
1
This point has almost certainly been made in the comments below, however, obviously, if this had been a gay baker who refused to bake a cake for a Christian bigot, the Christian community would have been howling "anti-Christian" discrimination.
One need not look far for an example of this, as Mike Huckabee labeled Jim Carey "anti-christian" for painting an unflattering picture of his daughter. Mr. Carey, in expressing himself as protected by The Constitution, was quickly labeled as 'against' an entire religion of over a billion people.
This is a sad day and does reinforce my belief that the United States is quickly becoming a Christian version of Saudi Arabia.
4
Court argues that Colorado said religion has also been used to support slavery and Holocaust - implying that NO use of religion could be justified. On the other hand, Baker said he would not sell ANY cake to be used in gay marriage - regardless of his association with it, or whether or not it had text or symbols. Does this mean he would refuse to sell a white cake? or a white cake with sugar roses? Or that he could require an affidavit the cake (of any color) would not be used in a gay household or marriage? On the Baker's position, why not refuse to sell gas that would be used to drive to a gay marriage? Or paint used to paint a gay house, or food used to feed gay people (other than cake). Neither the state (with its Holocaust hyperbole) nor the Baker & Opposition (refusing to sell "cake" regardless of decoration or message) come out well here. The court says we must allow free speech even when we find it distasteful, but the act of selling any cake at all (or gas, or food) to be used by gay people should be judged on the side of ordinary open commerce.
2
I can't agree with this decision based on religion or sexual preference. If you are a human being in a business you should not be able to choose which human beings you will serve. This ruling is disgusting.
2
Totally wrong decision, symptomatic of the current atmosphere of legalism devoid of compassion, and in this case, of common sense. This baker was asked to provide an object used to celebrate a harmless religious tradition of two other individuals, one that he disagreed with, sure, but a mere harmless image nonetheless. He could have done it while pointedly disagreeing, possibly blending in a disclaimer with the icing, since he claims to be an artist. Instead of that, he refused service, just like others did at lunch counters in Alabama years ago. With this decision his religious preference is elevated above his customers' in a situation otherwise free of coercion--and that means in effect he was and is free to discriminate on the basis of religion alone. Others will invoke this supposed right under the cloak of religion and we will soon be back in a discriminatory dark age. The law should not be used to support one superstition in preference to another. This case should have been decided on the principle of de minimis non curat lex. It would also have been less trouble if the plaintiffs had just returned the baker's flipped bird in kind in the first place. Discriminators like that baker don't deserve any business.
2
This guy is going to have fun trying to run a business without the patronage of LGBT and their friends and family, and even those who don’t know many but disagree with his policy. Yelp and word of mouth aren’t going to be his friends. He just did his competition a massive favor, and I have a feeling he’s going to find out the people who agree with him aren’t going to keep his business afloat—not that he won’t whine about it or take some handouts from evangelical charities.
3
Only liberal/progressive ideologues shop based on ideological criteria. Most people in Colorado, or anywhere else for that matter, do not choose their bakers based on their political correctness. They look for someone with skills and who can bake and deliver a delicious and beautifully crafted cake, etc. on time for a reasonable price.
1
Properly read, this is a victory for due process.
The baker does not have to bake cakes for all customers, ONLY because the Colorado agency that's responsible for evaluating & deciding claims of discrimination behaved in an improper way. The baker has religious views that the agency did not consider in an impartial way.
SCOTUS slammed the agency, did not diminish any LGBTQIA rights (but in dicta reaffirmed them), & did not create or endorse any right to discriminate against the LGBTQIA community.
This reporting is deficient in its obtuse view of due process, THE center of the decision. This reporting barely mentions how the 1st Amendment issues were not addressed or resolved, but seems to highlight the baker's win, as though he prevailed over the gay couple. The baker prevailed over reprehensible due process violations, & the Colorado agency failed to protect adequately the gay couple's rights.
The headline should have been something along the lines of 'Supreme Court Criticizes State Agency For Failing Baker And Gay Couple', which if the heart of the decision.
6
But the end result is that now religious rights trump everything. The SC could have asked the district court to reconsider any state agency biases, then make a decision. Now it looks like the chief justice wanted to use this case to advance his religious beliefs. USA is getting dangerously near to establishing a theocracy here.
1
Extrapolating outwards from Kennedy's logic many people can refuse to provide service or even cooperation with others they disagree with on religious grounds.
The lack of intellectual rigor at the court continues to grow.
1
What's next- prohibiting LGBTQ customers from restaurants because the owner hates (let's call a spade a spade: it's hate) them?
1
As someone who grew up in a Christian household, it's sad that Christianity is now equated with bigotry.
Whatever happened to Jesus' great commandment: "Love thy neighbor as thyself"? Will the SCOTUS require all Bibles to add a disclaimer, "Unless they're gay."
8
Not everyone shares your view of what constitutes Christianity. And your view of Christian morality is not necessarily the "right" one. The Bible is a complex theological work and parts of it explicitly state that those engaged in sodomy must be put to death. I don't agree with that belief but I'm smart and tolerant enough to realize there is no one "Christianity" that you, the Pope or anyone else speaks for.
2
This was a business decision. As such, the owner can decide for himself whether he wants the specific business that walks in the door. Now, if he rejects that client, he has taken a decision to make less money. That should be his right.
In another business decision, the NFL has decided that players kneeling at the anthem before a game caused potential fans and home viewers to not view that game. The owners will make less money. Therefore, they made the decision that such displays may not be made on the field. The players, then, are free to do what they will when not suited up and in competition.
The baker made the opposite decision. That is, he turned potential business away.
The reasons why the above differing decisions were made should not enter into the equation.
3
Because everything is about money.
1
So it sounds like you feel the Civil Rights Act was a mistake because it interferes with business decisions? Btw, why should a baker's first amendment rights matter more than those of a football player?
3
Because the baker and the NFL are both businesses and should have the right to run their respective organizations.
Jesus promoted equality, fairness, kindness, forgiveness, love, compassion, understanding, and most importantly empathy.
This decision, and Mr. Phillips and his supporters, exhibit none of these. In fact, they embody just the opposite.
Bigotry is not a Christian value. Nor is the condemnation of homosexuality. In fact, when it comes to homosexuality, Jesus was notably silent. He doesn't utter a single word about it in the New Testament. A book which, judging by their actions, many of these "so-called" Christians have never even read, let alone understood.
A big win for hatred, and not much else, sad to say.
1
If you are a baker or hotel and a couple comes into your business, you can't refuse their service just because you think they are gay.
That's what the Supreme Court said today.
What the Supreme Court also said was that if you file a discrimination complaint with a state civil rights commission, then the commission should apply civil rights law simply, and not comment on the business defending its discriminatory practice.
If you proceed from the assumption that your religious beliefs entitle you to discrimination, then you may conclude that the Mormon church can prohibit Black people from serving as ministers, the Salvation Army shelters can turn away Jews, and Catholic hospitals may deny medical services to atheists.
At this point, some friends should force the point of religious freedom through the courts:
Should a couple of friends, one Christian and one Jewish, with a really good sense of humor, set up the same situation and then conduct a friendly litigation?
How about a Catholic and a Protestant pair of friends?
Could be fun and illuminating. John Oliver should have a field day.
1
Mary and Joseph were betrothed not married at the time she conceived and it is not clear if a marriage ceremony had been held before the birth or Jesus . There were different religious rules and customs concerning engagement and marriage then but let us assume that the innkeeper, the midwife, the food vendors in Bethlehem at least knew that Mary had conceived outside of wedlock and not by Joseph. How would this devout, 21st century Christian baker have dealt with Mary and Joseph? Would his religious convictions dictated that he not sell them something they needed?
7
Had he been an innkeeper - he probably would have declined to give them lodging!
3
I certainly hope these 7 justices are heckeld, protested at every public forum they attend. Time for them to "see the light".
2
Mr. Phillips flouts Christ's commitment to love they neighbor as thyself. Mark 12:31.
One may describe Phillips a person of faith, as SCOTUS has, but it is inaccurate to describe him as a "Christian."
6
There will always be folks like this who hide behind their religion to judge others. So Christian of him to judge his customers. He says he refuses to make the cakes so not to partake in the sin of same-sex marriage... does he make cakes for divorced couples who remarry others, for couples about to be married who first lived together, does he check into all their backgrounds first, does he make cakes only for perfect "sinless" human beings? If so, wow, I'd love to meet them. Let him keep his cakes. They'd leave a bad taste in my mouth.
10
It appears his business offered them any cake in his shop. However he personally was not going to design a special cake for them because they were gay. Buy the standard cake and leave or go elsewhere. Why the big deal.
6
because it is discriminatory.
1
They wanted a wedding cake, not a birthday cake or Halloween cake. Wouldn't you want a wedding cake for your wedding? Masterpiece Cakes doesn't offer standard wedding cakes off the shelf.
2
it's NOT about the cake or the baker: " . . . the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, he wrote, had acted with 'clear and impermissible hostility' to sincerely held religious beliefs."
Translation: The Commission was loaded with LBGTQI-sympathetic members and the neighborhood baker was the unfortunate innocent for what ultimately became a major test case.
6
This decision is wrong in so many ways but in the simplest terms possible, we all pay taxes to build the common infrastructure that we all need to live and thrive. My taxes pay for the electical grid this bake shop needs. My taxes pay for the roads he drives on. My taxes build and maintain the sewers he needs for his shop. My taxes pay for the police and fire protection he enjoys. My taxes make it possible for his business to exist and thrive. That being the case, please tell me again why he is legally allowed to discriminate against me?
16
If you or she is in a business of providing a service, yes he has a right.
A private residence and an incorporated public business are two completely separate things. That business is making money using tax funds that I was forced to pay and they knowingly joined a social contract by opening a public business. He broke the social contract by using my taxes to support his business and then refusing me service. It is discrimination plain and simple.
I don't see a philosophical difference between a private residence and a business (whether incorporated or a sole proprietorship). Either way, you are telling a private person that he must associate with someone whom he does not want to. There is no "social contract." That is something Marxists make up when trying to justify their tyranny.
1
Horrible Decision! I respectfully dissent along with Ginsburg and Sotomayor. Religions may have right to refuse to do certain ceremonies, but a bakery is not religious in itself.
What if a bakery refused to serve women, religious minorities, or, gasp Republicans? No can do. When businesses serve the public, they don’t get to define that public.
9
Unfortunately we've superceded the main issue. And that is people should be allowed to contract with whomever they wish. That's what freedom is all about. If a person doesn't like the pimple on your nose and gives that as the reason or no reason at all other then his bigotry, so be it. Go find someone else who wants to make a contract with you. You will find it. Don't force your views on someone else. Respect their beliefs.
Our rights under the Constitution prevents the government from taking away our freedoms. The government should not interfere with personal arrangements people want to make or not make with other people.
4
You're making the arguments made by opponents of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Do you think that Jim Crow laws should be allowed?
1
No idea if my previous century observations are palatable to the NYT of today but hey let’s try. People of my generation would have observed that a guy making frosty wedding cakes to begin with might, in some nonjudgmental sense, already be employed in a profession that welcomes and celebrates diversity. The fact that such a fellow would manifest hostility toward a gay couple is, to be blunt, peculiar. However it’s very typical of the entire conservative, anti-gay persona: they seem to perceive threats and fears from the outside when in fact there are things within themselves they are afraid to face. American conservatism is more about denial and self-repression than it is about actual policy.
5
With today's decision the Supreme Court has just allowed me to refuse service to Christian fundamentalists because their barbaric superstitions offend my ethics. What goes around comes around.
14
And now proponents of Obergefell begin to understand the problem with Kennedy's concept of Dignity as a primary legal value. He decided gay marriage on the concept of dignity, and having done so, now has to limit the unintended but predictable consequences - if one person's dignity supercedes the legal status quo, then another 's does too. So this inevitably becomes my dignity vs your dignity and leads us down a road of much bench-legislating
Let me start off by disclosing that I identify as gay. PRECISELY, because of my sexual orientation do I side with the majority in this case. Let me explain. The gay pride movement has championed equality and acceptance for its members. Not respecting someone's religious beliefs, e.g. not respecting the baker's religious tenets seems hypocritical to someone who has fought for recognition of his own beliefs. The baker wasn't violent with the couple, the couple might have felt slighted or offended, sure, but this doesn't seem like discrimination to me. They could have moved along and simply chosen another baker for their wedding cake. Fighting this in court is tantamount to FORCING your belief onto someone else which looks a lot like the type of behavior the gay movement was fighting against in the first place. Tolerance is a two-way street. I came out to my mother 10 years ago and it's only NOW that we're starting to get along better. It's only after growing and maturing that I've realized that for her, I died. She had to mourn and come to terms with the "new" me. Let's be tolerant ourselves and in the spirit of compassion and tolerance respect people's edges.
12
I think tolerance is wonderful, but I disagree with discriminating against anyone because of who they are. For example, do you think landlords should be able to evict gay tenants because of sincerely held religious beliefs? Do you think a doctor should be able to refuse to see the infant child of a gay couple because of her sincerely held religious beliefs? Do you believe that blacks can be refused service because of the color of their skin?
2
Freedom of religion is what created our country. How could the Supreme Court make a ruling that is hostile to this baker's religion?? I am not a Christian and I favor same sex marriages but surely there are many gay bakers who would gladly make this cake.
3
I think the principle is the one established by the Civil Rights Act--if you operate in the public marketplace, you treat all customers equally. There were many businesses in the South that catered only to blacks because so many restaurants and stores refused them service. Jim Crow laws were still destructive to the dignity of blacks, even though blacks had other options.
1
A baker refusing to bake a cake for a mixed race couple is clearly against the law as it should be.
It is important that people with differing moral viewpoints learn to treat one another with respect. This is true for both sides.
I support homosexuality as a protected class, because quite frankly, they would get abused if they weren’t. With that being said, there is nothing wrong with someone of faith saying that that homosexuality is sinful (people are entitled to their own moral POV), but the buck stops when you being denying people their dignity. The last time I read the gospels Jesus treated sinners with dignity and respect, did he not?
However, using your status as a protected class to abuse and mistreat people of faith is also wrong, and that is why I agree with the court’s decision on this one. This is not simply a case of a gay couple walking into a bakery and being denied service based on their sexual orientation. I’m sure the owner would have been happy to sell them any of his off-the-rack pasteries. In this particular instance, they asked him to create a custom designed cake to be used for the specific purpose of celebrating a gay wedding - something the baker has a faith-based moral objection to. He has every right to say no to that request, and using a civil rights commission to penalize him for it is unkind, hateful, and discriminatory towards people of faith.
Would it be right for a Christian to ask a Muslim baker to create a cake that says “Jesus is Lord”? Twisting someone’s arm to do something they have a moral objection to is not love - it’s hate.
6