THE US SUPREME Court has ruled in favour of a Colorado baker who refused to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in a closely-watched case pitting gay rights against religious liberty.
In a 7-2 decision, the high court ruled that while the Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that Masterpiece Cake shop must serve clients regardless of sexual orientation, the panel showed “clear and impermissible hostility towards the sincere religious beliefs” of the baker.The commission therefore violated the baker Jack Phillips’s religious rights under the US Constitution’s First Amendment, the justices found.But they did not definitively rule on the issue of whether a business can decline to serve gays and lesbians based on religious views, meaning the broader contentious issue is likely to simmer.The US Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage nationwide in 2015, and the state of Colorado has a series of anti-discrimination laws that protect gay people.Phillips had argued that he refused to serve the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, in 2012 because their planned marriage ran counter to his Christian faith.
The Colorado commission’s “hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion”, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in an 18-page majority opinion.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.Last December the high court heard impassioned arguments in the closely watched case pitting free speech, religion and artistic freedom against anti-discrimination laws.
It has been the most significant case for gay rights since the high court approved same-sex marriage.The American Civil Liberties Union, which argued the case on behalf of Mullins and Craig, said today’s ruling represented a victory for the core principle upholding fair business practices for all.“The court reversed the Masterpiece Cake shop decision based on concerns unique to the case, but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people,” said ACLU deputy legal director Louise Melling.
peoples responses
A:If he refuses to serve homosexuals due to his faith then he’ll presumably also refuse service to divorced people, people with tattoos, people wearing mixed fabrics and the many other qualities the Bible forbids, or is he just a homophobe?
B:He didn’t refuse to serve them outright. He just refused to bake the cake they wanted. It’s his business therefore his beliefs , whether you agree with them or not, should take priority over anyone else’s.
C: The right decision prevails in this case. The tolerance proclaimed by many is limited and selective as long as it is in harmony with their way of thinking and their belief systems, once this differs or goes against the grain, suddenly people are labelled as bigots and slandered etc. etc. which in itself is it’s own form of bigotry and intolerance.Justice Anthony Kennedy : “… has held that tolerance is a two-way street, and Jack Phillips was not tolerated by the Civil Rights Commission of Colorado,”
D:Eh no, it’s not that simple. If I walk into a Muslim butcher shop and ask for pork, can I sue him for discrimination if they refuse to serve me? What if I ask a Muslim baker to bake me a cake depicting Muhammad being crucified? Should he shut up and just do his job that I’m willing to pay him to do? I certainly wouldn’t expect him too to bake it and that’s fine. Would you? Only a fascist would expect enforcement of a business to provide a service they do not want to provide. Remember it’s the service, not the people they are serving that’s the issue here. Big difference.
E: What IS extreme though is expecting a private business to provide a service against their will. The fact that so many people miss this point is frightening. He didn’t refuse them because they were gay. He refused to decorate the gay themed wedding cake as he did not want to participate in a gay wedding as it goes against his religious beliefs. He even offered to bake the cake but just have someone else do the decoration but unfortunately, this wasn’t good enough for the couple. Instead of saying “fair enough, we’re not going to agree on something, let’s go somewhere else” they decide to try to sue and financially ruin him.
F: As a gay person, everybody who owns a business to refuse to serve anyone. In a similar contrast, a gay confectioner can refuse to cook a cake for a straight couple. Political correctness and rights went over the top. What ever happened to the right to choose and refuse.
G: Ask a Muslim butcher for non-halal meat and see what happens. Should Muslim butchers be forced to prepare non-halal meat against their religious beliefs for me? eh?.
H: Totally sensible decision, freedom of speech a fundamental right.
