Supreme Court Rules for Colorado Baker in Same-sex Wedding Cake Case

WASHINGTON D.C. — The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same-sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips but leaves unsettled the broader constitutional questions the case presented.

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is not the wide-ranging ruling on religious liberty that some expected. It is tailored to the case at hand with the justices holding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination.

The case was one of the most anticipated rulings of the term and was considered by some as a follow up from the Court’s decision two years ago to clear the way for same-sex marriage nationwide. That opinion expressed respect for those with religious objections to gay marriage.

15 comments

  • jonathan d turner (@jdt831)

    For those that don’t agree with the decision, 7-2. That means 2 of your liberal justices agree with the decision, so you may want to reconsider. The fact is that if we are not free to practice our beliefs in our business life, as well as our personal life, we don’t have freedom of religion, or even the freedom to believe what we want outside of religion. Be careful what you ask for. Government will find a way to use what you want to use against other, against you.

  • Cari L. Fedorchak

    I’m glad for the baker! What I don’t understand is WHY would the same sex couple want the baker to make their cake KNOWING he doesn’t like their lifestyle! WHY would they pay someone that hates their lifestyle?? The baker has every right to his opinions just like the same-sex couple has every right to their opinions and the couple shouldn’t be forcing their view on the baker and dragging such drivel all the way to The Supreme Court!

  • AMJoy Fan

    This is institutionalized homophobia! The so-called supreme court It is at it again. Didn’t they damage the country enough when they appointed Bush President in 2000? This ruling is also a clear violation of UN Resolutions and there is no way it should be let stand! #resist #lovetrumpshate

    • jimbrony

      You say love trumps hate. What would you call death threats and other forms of harassment to the owners of a bridal shop in Bloomsburg that asked a gay couple to go elsewhere? The owners are so concerned for their own welfare and that of their employees that they’re only open by appointment. All because of the loving, tolerant gay community. Like I said before, reasonable people would just go somewhere else. The Supreme Court has spoken, you lose this one.

    • Kurt Aarons emotionally scarred sweater vest

      Since when does a sovereign nation listen to what the UN dictates? Go home socialist , no one wants or needs to hear your brain damaged ranting

      • AMJoy Fan

        Then why should a state have to follow the ruling of the SCOTUS? Colorado courts ruled that the state’s public accommodation law, which bans discrimination by companies offering their services to the public, did not allow the baker to refuse the gay couple’s request. A reasonable person would assume that the cake expressed the message of the couple, not the baker, the courts said. #opentoall

      • Kurt Aarons emotionally scarred sweater vest

        Sigh, I get the sense that you are a young millennial that lacks basic reading comprehension and have not read the supreme courts ruling I’ll summarize it in a TL;DR format you might understand: When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires. Moreover why states recognize the ruling of the supreme court is because it is plainly written in the Constitution; another document that is apparent that you have no knowledge of. But go ahead wear your Che Guevara tshirt and rant on about the evils of capitalism and how no one has ever tried “true socialism”

    • straubdavid9

      What happened …… did you get sand kicked back in your face, and now you can’t boss everyone around anymore? The ship has been righted where it needed to be …… I guess you will have to find something else to do with yourself, instead of harassing those that don’t agree, nor care about your chosen lifestyle.

  • Silverfish Imperetrix

    Finally, a victory for liberty. I’m sure there’s plenty of other bakers that will make a cake for a homosexual wedding, instead of FORCING one that doesn’t want to to comply. I hope the tyranny of the minority stops here.

    • straubdavid9

      Agree 100% Silverfish ….. these people forget that their “rights” end where other’s rights begin. That whole community are nothing but a bunch of bullies, pushing their agenda where it is not welcomed. They targeted that baker. and I hope the baker can sue the hell out of them for harassment, and the damage that they caused that family. This BS goes both ways.

    • jimbrony

      Right on. If a reasonable person doesn’t get the treatment they want at a business, they take their business elsewhere. Not the militant gay mafia. They continue to say they want equality when in reality they want preferential treatment. This is a win for the moral majority.

      • AMJoy Fan

        The homophobic ruling is a human rights violation! And during Pride Month none the less. Maybe it should be about REPARATIONS for a legacy of hate, rather than just “equality”. #resist

      • jimbrony

        Since when is having a cake made by a particular baker a human right? You forgot to use the other buzz words you people throw around: Bigot, xenophobia, racist, and cis-whatever. Loving your tantrums by the way. 😂😂😂

Comments are closed.