Wedding cake for gay couple court case
In Masterpiece, the Bakery Wins the Battle but Loses the War
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a bakery that had refused to offer a wedding cake to a homosexual couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will have little to no applicability to future cases. The opinion is complete of reaffirmations of our country’s longstanding rule that states can bar businesses that are expose to the widespread from turning customers away because of who they are.
The case involves Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a homosexual couple who went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver in search of a cake for their wedding reception. When the bakery refused to trade Dave and Charlie a wedding cake because they’re homosexual, the couple sued under Colorado’s longstanding nondiscrimination law. The bakery claimed that the Constitution’s protections of free speech and freedom of religion gave it the right to discriminate and to override the state’s civil rights commandment. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission governed against the bakery, and a declare appeals c
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ()
Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
In a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages the Mention of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. . . .
The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to defend the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedoms asserted here are both the release of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for
Colorado high court to listen case against Christian baker who refused to construct trans-themed cake
On the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court victory this summer for a graphic artist who didn’t want to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, Colorado’s highest court said Tuesday it will now hear the case of a Christian baker who refused to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.
The announcement by the Colorado Supreme Court is the latest development in the yearslong legal saga involving Jack Phillips and LGBTQ rights.
Phillips won a partial victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in after refusing to make a queer couple’s wedding cake.
He was later sued by Autumn Scardina, a transgender chick, after Phillips and his suburban Denver bakery refused to make a pink cake with blue frosting for her birthday and to celebrate her gender transition.
Scardina, an attorney, said she brought the lawsuit to “challenge the veracity” of Phillips’ statements that he would serve LGBTQ customers. Her attorney said her cake order was not a “set up” intended to file a lawsuit.
The Colorado Suprem
'Gay cake' row: What is the dispute about?
In October , the owners of the bakery disoriented their appeal against the verdict that their refusal to create a "gay cake" was discriminatory.
Appeal court judges said that, under law, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs, external.
Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious release and free speech".
The firm then took the case to the Supreme Court and they won.
The UK's highest court ruled the bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
Then president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, ruled the bakers did not refuse to fulfil the order because of the customer's sexual orientation.
"They would possess refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation," she said.
"Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to