Supreme Court will hear case of Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cake for same-sex couple

[mahatmakanejeeves]

Source: Los Angeles Times

David G. Savage
[e-mail]

June 26, 2017, 6:30 AM Reporting from Washington

Supreme Court justices voted to hear an appeal from the owner of a Colorado bakery who refused to create and design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. ... The high court has agreed to hear a major case pitting conservative Christian beliefs against gay rights, and decide whether some business owners may cite their religious views as a reason for refusing to serve same-sex couples.

The justices voted to hear an appeal from the owner of a Colorado bakery who refused to create and design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. ... The case will be heard in the fall, and it could have a wide impact in the states that prohibit discrimination against people based on their sexual orientation.
....

Jack Phillips, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., was charged with violating the states anti-discrimination law, which says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, sex or sexual orientation. ... The state commission held that his refusal to make the wedding cake amounted to discriminatory conduct, and the state courts upheld that decision.

But Phillips appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing he deserved a religious exemption based on the 1st Amendments guarantee of freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. His lawyers described him as a cake artist who will not create cakes celebrating any marriage that is contrary to his understanding of biblical teaching. They also said he has refused to make cakes to celebrate Halloween or created baked goods that have an anti-American or anti-family themes or carry profane messages.
....

[e-mail]

On Twitter: DavidGSavage

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court-gays-religion-20170626-story.html

---

* * * * *

Huge shoutout to SCOTUSblog, who had the story first. I will add a reply with updated information.

* * * * *

Hat tip, DonViejo: http://www.politico.com/story/2017/06/26/supreme-court-agrees-to-take-up-colorado-gay-wedding-case-239952

* * * * *

Full disclosure: I started the thread with a link to ThinkProgress. I consider that an opinion site, not a news organization. Here is the original OP:

BREAKING: Supreme Court to decide if religion is a license to discriminate

https://thinkprogress.org/breaking-supreme-court-to-decide-if-religion-is-a-license-to-discriminate-40a8e93d3ced

Gorsuch doesnt appear to be wasting any time.

Ian Millhiser
Justice Editor, ThinkProgress. Author of Injustices: SCOTUS History of Comforting the Comfortable and Afflicting the Afflicted [e-mail]
Jun 26

The Court announced on Monday that it will hear a suit brought by a baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a couple because the couple is gay, giving the newly Gorsuched Court an opportunity to expand religious conservatives ability to violate civil rights laws.

The bakery at the heart of the dispute in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (1) claims it has a constitutional right to defy Colorado's anti-discrimination law (2) because its owner, in the words of a lower court that heard this case, believes that he would displease God by creating cakes for same-sex marriages.

The bakery claims both that its owners religious belief gives it a special right to defy the law, and that requiring the bakery to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding amounts to a form of compelled speech prohibited by the First Amendment. Neither of these arguments holds water under longstanding legal doctrines.

(1) http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/masterpiece-cakeshop-ltd-v-colorado-civil-rights-commn/

(2) http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf

* * * * *

SCOTUSblog: Live blog of opinions June 26, 2017

https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029254556

* * * * *

SCOTUS will review right of private parties to deny services to same-sex couples, particularly in industries involving expression.

Link to tweet

[greymattermom]

1. So this brings back racial segregation

in housing, schools, and it even brings back the back of the bus. Anyone can claim anything is against their religion. So will it allow businesses to block concealed carry customers because of a religious objection?

[uppityperson]

2. K&R

On the one hand, good. Get it settled. On the other hand if this passes, next up, overturn Loving?

[mountain grammy]

3. Of course, as long as they're rich, white and Christian.

[justhanginon]

4. Perhaps the Masterpiece Bake Shop could call God as a witness

and he could testify in person and thus confirm his displeasure. If God is not well and truly pissed about baking cakes for gays it seems to me they have no case.

[rurallib]

17. I believe you have gotten to the crux of the matter

[mountain grammy]

32. +1

[mahatmakanejeeves]

5. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Docket No. Op. Below Argument Opinion Vote Author Term
16-111 Colo. App. TBD TBD TBD TBD OT 2017
Issue: Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.

[LS_Editor]

6. Not good.

[Sunlei]

7. SC voted to hear an "appeal"? it's kind of silly IMO-RW-rads to spend $$$$ about words on a cake.

Make the words really tasty and people will eat those words first!

What RW political tax free charity is pays for the court case?

It's not inexpensive to take a case to Federal courts, even if the RW charity has Lawyers who work for "free"

[Princess Turandot]

34. The case was brought on the baker's behalf by the "Alliance Defending Freedom"

Wikipedia describes them as:

"Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF, formerly Alliance Defense Fund) is a 501(c)(3)[4] American conservative Christian nonprofit organization with the stated goal of advocating, training, and funding on the issues of "religious freedom, sanctity of life, and marriage and family." The ADF is based in Scottsdale, Arizona. It has six branch offices, located in Sacramento, California; Lawrenceville, Georgia; Shreveport, Louisiana; Memphis, Tennessee; Washington, D.C., and Olathe, Kansas. In addition, the ADF Center for Academic Freedom is located in Nashville, Tennessee."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alliance_Defending_Freedom

[dembotoz]

8. betcha pence has a woody,,,mom better watch out

[Coventina]

9. Why are RW Christians so afraid of cakes?

[christx30]

18. They are being asked to participate

in something they don't believe in. In their minds, it is not possible for two men to get married. They think it's destructive to society to allow it to happen. Like the pharmacists that won't dispense birth control pills. "I don't believe in it, so I won't participate in it."
It's their version of resistance.

[procon]

10. Sure, let them brand their business as mini churches and discriminate at will, BUT

once those bigots turn down that path then ALL the other religious taboos, bans and restrictions should also apply. Have you seen all the things a TRUE christian can't do?

https://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/comments/2l7qh2/41_things_the_bible_condemns_other_than/

[KWR65]

12. Leviticus is Jewish law. It is not Christian canon law.

You can find the Christian canon law in the Roman Catholic Catechism.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM

PROLOGUE

I. The life of man - to know and love God
II. Handing on the Faith: Catechesis
III. The Aim and Intended Readership of the Catechism
IV. Structure of this Catechism
V. Practical Directions for Using this Catechism
VI. Necessary Adaptations

[procon]

14. Seriously? 😕 Do you really want to go down that path and preach

religion rather than stay on topic? If you're here at DU to defend intolerance, bigotry and religious discrimination try starting a separate thread to advance that opinion.

[BruceWane]

39. Thanks for pointing that out

You're basically wrong, but thanks anyway

You might want to review the origins and contents of the book you're referring to. There's actually quite a few versions of the Old Testament, and I don't mean just historically, I mean right now, current day.

Development of the Christian Biblical Canon

If Leviticus isn't christian canon, why was it included in christian canon in the first place?

But that's beside the larger point - the bible is a collection of stories that was curated hundreds of years after their supposed occurrence, by whole bunch of entirely human men, over a period of hundreds of years. The Roman Catholic Catechism is an interpretation of that collection of stories. An interpretation that was carried out by...... a whole bunch of entirely human men over a period of hundreds of years.

Now THAT'S a recipe for accuracy if I ever saw one.

You shouldn't hold beliefs as valid just because they're old.

[AJT]

11. Any legal scholars out there?

When can a person be denied service? If you own a bakery on main street and a nazi skinhead comes in and wants you to make a birthday cake for Hitler's birthday but you find it offensive can you say no?

[MGKrebs]

20. I'm not a legal scholar but I did stay at a...

But it seems that you can't make a "Christian bookstore" sell Korans, and you can't make a Kosher deli serve non-Kosher food. So if that guy wants to have a Christian bakery he should just call it that and roll with it. But he's trying to have it both ways- take the gays money as long as he doesn't know it. Kind of a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

[christx30]

22. There was a story covered a few years ago

Last edited Mon Jun 26, 2017, 02:53 PM - Edit history (1)

here on DU where a Muslim hairdresser wouldn't cut a woman's hair because he didn't want to have contact with a non-related person of the opposite sex. Against his religion. There were a few people that were ok with it, and a few that were calling it BS. This took place in Canada, and the settlement were, IIRC, confidential. So, I don't know.


https://www.democraticunderground.com/121854946

[onenote]

24. The examples you cite are distinguishable

The reason that the government can't force a bookstore to sell Korans is the First Amendment, which protects the bookstore's right to decide what books to sell or not sell. But the government could enforce an anti-discrimination law against a bookstore that refused to sell books to non-Christians. Or African Americans. Or, where the law protects against sexual orientation discrimination, to a gay individual.

Similarly, the government can't force a Kosher deli to serve non-Kosher food because selling only Kosher food doesn't discriminate against any protected class. But if a Kosher deli wanted only to serve Jews, it would have a discrimination problem.

The wedding cake cases sometimes have been framed as having a free speech component -- that a bakery can't be forced to bake a cake with a message that it finds offensive. Indeed, that is one of the arguments made in the Masterpiece case. And if the cake that the gay couple wanted itself contained some content -- a pair of men as cake toppers or a written message congratulating "Charlie and David on their marriage" -- that argument might require some further consideration. But baking a cake is just baking a cake even when it is a specialized cake such as a wedding cake. And even a "message" on a cake shouldn't save it from anti-discrimination laws. For example, what if a baker refused to bake a cake for interracial couples or for interfaith couples or Jewish couples (and thus wouldn't put a cake topper that showed a man with a yarmulke). The baker might claim the figurines represented expressive content going beyond simply making a cake. But even then it is doubtful that including such figurines conveys a message of approval of such couples -- it simply conveys the fact of who is getting married.

My guess is that this case is going to end up with a plethora of opinions slicing and dicing the issues.

[Freethinker65]

30. Thanks for your interpretation of why the wedding cake is discrimination

I agree. If you make wedding cakes, you should not be able to discriminate who you sell the wedding cake to. I suppose you could legally just decide not to make wedding cakes altogether or object to a particular design of cake that is not what you have sold in the past.

Didn't some state (perhaps Alabama?) propose getting out of the marriage license "business" altogether rather than abide by the Supreme Court's same sex marriage decision? That, while extreme, would get around any discrimination ruling.

It is a shame that issues like this even make it to the SC.

[LanternWaste]

23. As you are not denying service on grounds of race, sex, religion, or national origin, yes

If you own a bakery on main street and a nazi skinhead comes in and wants you to make a birthday cake for Hitler's birthday but you find it offensive can you say no?"

As you are not denying service on grounds of race, sex, religion, or national origin, yes; though there are some municipalities which add political parties to that list (though one could argue that discriminating based on a person’s Nazi ideas isn’t the same as discriminating based on political affiliation).

[TexasBushwhacker]

37. Nazi skinheads aren't a protected class

LGBTQ are.

[geek tragedy]

44. Change the fact pattern to a gay graphic designer to help promote

a virulently homophobic church (even foul religions are also a protected class and in fact generally enjoy stronger protections at the federal level)

Same outcome?

[adigal]

13. I will make any gay couple their wedding cake

But I wont make cakes for evangelical Christians.

[mahatmakanejeeves]

15. SC to consider whether the 1A's religion clauses allow a bakery to deny service to gay couples

The Supreme Court consider whether the Constitution’s religion clauses allow a bakery to deny service to gay couples

Link to tweet

[kacekwl]

16. Seriously, this is what makes it

to the Supreme Court.

[lark]

19. Alito, Thomas and Gorsuch are all shoo in votes for this.

They will do anything and everything to let white christian religious bigots rule the day and will do everything in their power to remove any and all protections for LGBT couples or even just LGBT people. Discrimination R Them! Only question is will Roberts and Kennedy go along with the full on haters and the answer to this is usually yes.

[citood]

27. I don't think anyone is a shoe in on this one

I predict at least one left leaning justice will surprise us, as will at least one right leaning justice...and I have no idea how the case might land in the end.

There are a lot of slippery slope arguments that can be made on both sides of this. I expect the unexpected.

[lark]

28. It will be very interesting, at a minimum.

[WinkyDink]

21. Jesus hates gay cakes! He's okay with tarts, though. ;-)

[msongs]

25. sorry but we no longer make cakes for christians nt

[Voltaire2]

26. ugh

[mahatmakanejeeves]

29. The cake case, writes @smencimer, is custom-made for Justice Gorsuch:

The cake case, writes @smencimer, is custom-made for Justice Gorsuch:

Link to tweet

The Supreme Court Will Finally Hear the Case About the Christian Baker and the Gay Wedding Cake

New Justice Neil Gorsuch already making his mark on the court

STEPHANIE MENCIMERJUN. 26, 2017 11:29 AM

[jgmiller]

31. I'm really surprised they wanted to deal with this

It's a legal mine field. Let's say someone comes into their cake shop and says they want him to make a cake of a nude woman. I doubt there are many people that say he would be legally required to make that cake even if it offended him. If two gay men come into his cake shop and want to buy a cake for their wedding but there is nothing offending on the cake, not even their names or even figures of two guys then most logical people would say him denying them service is discriminatory. However every business has a sign that says they can refuse service for any reason. The couple went in there know they might not get served.

Where it really gets messy is where you draw the line. Did he ask the couple if they are gay? That seems discriminatory to me because he is vetting people asking personal information so he is violating their right to privacy. If they asked for two men on the cake and he said he would make a cake for them but he wouldn't put two men on it then to me that's not discriminatory because they are asking him to do something that is offensive to him, like the nude woman on a cake.

No matter what they rule they are going to create problems which is why I'm surprised they took it.

[onenote]

36. You can put up a sign saying you reserve the right to refuse service for any reason, but

that doesn't mean you actually can refuse service for any reason. For example, you can't refuse to serve someone because of their race or religion. And where a state or locality has a law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, you can't refuse service because they're gay. In this instance, the bakery claims, and it is not contested, that it has not policy against serving gays -- if the plaintiffs had wanted to purchase cookies, or a cupcakes or a birthday cake, the store claims it would sell it to them. But the store refuses to make wedding cakes for gay couples, even if the cake doesn't contain any expressive content (a figurine of two guys, or a message in the icing saying congratulations Charlie and Dave).

As you point out, the case raises some tough line drawing questions regarding protected groups and the First Amendment.

[mountain grammy]

33. I'm afraid of this case going to the SC.

To rule for the baker, will they declare Colorado's law banning discrimination against LGBT as unconstitutional? And what will that mean? I think comrade gorsuch was the big homophobic prize for this election.

I wish the couple had just gone to a different baker. This could be a devastating ruling.

[onenote]

35. No, they will not rule on the constitutionality of the Colorado law as a whole

There will be multiple opinions as the Court tries to sort through the difficult lines between expressive and non-expressive conduct.

[TexasBushwhacker]

38. I'm sure they did. But they also reported the offending baker

for violating the anti-discrimination law.

[Skittles]

40. fuck these homophobes

if they are allowed to deny service to certain groups it needs to be stated on their door and in all their advertisements so ALL OF US know they are fucking bigots

THERE ARE PLENTY OF US WHO WOULD NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THEM.

[Vinca]

41. Poor Jack the baker. He probably can't sleep at night worrying that the friend

of a gay couple might order a cake for them, pick it up and he'd be contributing to their "sinful" lifestyle by way of fondant. It could happen, Jack. They might even do nasty stuff with your fondant on the honeymoon.

[Initech]

42. This could backfire on the fundies big time. I hope it does.

[geek tragedy]

43. Like it or not, there is a legitimate 1st Amendment issue here.

Not only for free exercise of religion, but also for freedom of expression for people engaged in communicative vocations--can a Mexican artisan refuse to produce Tr*mp re-election-themed materials?

If it's just supplying regular stuff or fixing a toilet, it's one thing, but when the service or good is inherently expressive, different story.

[RobinA]

45. I Agree

I am a 1st Amendment purist, and I have to say I cringe a bit at the thought that the government can tell me who I have to create an expression for. Frankly, I'll decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple any day. I'll even decorate a flag-bedecked "Good Luck in the Army, America Is #1" cake even though it gives me the creeps. But I would like to reserve the right to NOT decorate a cake if I find the subject truly stomach churning. As defined by me.