News: Gay Couple Loses Cakeshop Case
The United States Supreme Court sided against a gay couple in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, citing that religion should have been given a bigger consideration in whether a Colorado baker could deny service to them. It’s a ruling that some LGBTQ activists fear will give businesses a license to discriminate.
The 7-2 ruling overturns the decision made by a Colorado civil rights commission, which found Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips in violation of the state’s anti discrimination law. The Colorado courts also upheld this ruling.
Phillips had refused to bake a wedding cake for gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig. Phillips said creating the cake is against his Christian beliefs against same-sex marriage, and that it would violate his right to religious freedom and artistic expression.
While disheartening, activists aren’t considering it a total loss as the ruling focuses on the decision-making process of the Colorado civil rights commission and does not expressly encourage businesses to discriminate.
The ruling points out that “commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” According to the Supreme Court, this qualified as open hostility to Phillips’ beliefs, which violates Phillips constitutional rights.
Of course, conservatives are bound to see this differently. Last year, Donald Trump already expressed his support of businesses refusing to serve LGBTQ people. In a December 2017 press briefing during the start of oral arguments for this case, press secretary Sarah Sanders said Trump supports allowing businesses to hang signs saying they won’t serve LGBTQ people.
How do you guys feel about this ruling? Are you afraid that this will be seen as a permission to discriminate against LGBTQ people? Have you experienced similar instances of discrimination? Share your thoughts and experiences in the comments section below.
I don’t understand why people want to give a business their money if they don’t like them or support their lifestyles. I guess that I can force a Moslem guy in a restaurant to make special bacon dinner and sue him when he refuses because it’s against his religion. Enough already
Good point!!!!!
Okay first of all, it’s not a lifestyle. Jodie Foster and a gay homeless drug addict do NOT live the same lifestyle. Second, you cannot require a business to provide a good or service they don’t usually offer. If a Muslim restaurant doesn’t serve pork, they don’t have to serve it to anyone. If a bakery makes wedding cakes, they have to make one for everyone. Lastly, I am little disturb that I am reading these types of comments on a gay blog. Attitudes like yours are NOT what got gay people where we are now. So in light of that I respectfully suggest you stand up for your self and do your part for the cause by growing a pair.
I agree. I would have just gone somewhere else that would have wanted to take my money to hell with them if they don’t want my business. I think if someone were to hang a sign up on the front of their business to that effect they would just be shooting themselves in the foot. Good riddance.
It should be pointed out that the baker does business with the LGBT community all the time. He only has an objection with one service. Gays have been served by his shop for other things so we really can’t say he’s a homophobe.
And lets face it, we all know this wasn’t really about a CAKE. I mean, it’s DENVER, for cryin’ out loud! I’m sure there are any number of bakers in town that would have been more than happy to take the couple’s business.
Indeed.
YEP, agree the baker doesn’t HAVE to do it, and since I am on here and this is MY community, AND I am an American, I back the bakers RIGHT to refuse, and assert my own RIGHT to not be a patron at a business that allows a ‘personal issue’ to defer a ‘business issue.’ I worked for a corporation, and I assure you the managers, owners, and most importantly the STOCK HOLDERS, didn’t give a crap about MY personal beliefs because they do not belong at work … and that would be true if I owned the business as well! I AM a Christian, and I can tell you, THAT baker’s God is not the same one I believe in, because Christians supposedly follow in Christ’s footsteps; therefore — forgive, help, and not judge others! I am not African American, but if the man’s religion said (as some people interpreted the Bible 150 years ago) to NOT serve an AA customer, I would also refuse to give any support to that business, in fact I do not write or hold chats with guys on here who state things like “not interested in ASIANS, No Mex, Fat, Old” …. and the list goes on. Hey, THINK whatever you want, but if you can’t simply state INTERESTED IN … , especially HERE, then I don’t want to waste my time getting to know you. We should understand a bit better that bigotry, in its many forms, always stinks …
Does this mean I can refuse to coach my students who want to sing sacred music because it goes against my atheism?
There’s a great marketing idea!
Our local public schools have steeed away from religious music for years.
Yes of course. If you own the business you can decide whom to serve.
Tolerance is a two way street.
#illogical reasoning
Well, duh. Ya think? We need facetious tone of voice emojis.
You Signed on under a school, not your own company, maybe you should coach an athiest school
It is my own private studio.
Then you SHOULD have the right to Take on or not take any student you wish for whatever reason you wish.
As much as I dislike the outcome, why do many of us goes to business that are clearly against gay rights?
And I’m really getting tired of religion getting away with murder, churches should be taxed.
This is what happens when people vote republican, it gives a pass to outdated laws like freedom of religion, the way they do it, cause in America there’s no one telling you can’t go to x y z religion, we do have the freedom if we choose to go that route.
A business is a public setting, customer service, so it shouldn’t matter if you’re gay, straight, bi, trans, etc. It’s all about the money lol! And if they don’t like gays, put a sign on it so I won’t go!
I totally agree with this. I couldn’t have said it better !
You can’t figure out gay people especially white ones. They know republicans are anti gay, but they vote for them anyway. Sort of like wanting to sex a non white person and turn around and support someone who has a history of discriminating against them. FOUL
oh, freedom of religion is outdated? OK, let’s get rid of it. Now, when the christians get a big enough power base, you can bet they’ll pass a law that levies taxes on you to support Christianity. Or maybe something less invasive, like no more open businesses on Sundays?
Or what about the one about freedom of speech? outdated? I’m pretty sure you’ll be wanting that one in the next 3 years (or god forbid, 7!)
How about the freedom from unreasonable search and seizure? that one outdated, too? or cruel and unusual punishment? Trial by jury? free attorney? the right to remain silent?
And let’s talk about that whole “business open to the public” thing: As long as Mark Zuckerberg can censor people like Diamond and Silk because he doesn’t like what they say, that “public setting/customer service” argument is just a load of rationalization. Not to mention bullshit.
Thats fascist, your not for people having rights. Your for people having your rights.
If this bakery was forced to make this cake, who knows what they might put in it. If they don’t want your money, go to a bakery that will make a great cake and appreciate your business.
EXACTLY!!!!!!
True
Waiting to hear from all these gays on here who voted for Trump…
I agree with ruling. If anyone did any research, they didn’t refuse to service them, they just didn’t want to make that cake. If the KKK wanted this couple to make this cake and they refused to make it, would it have that big of a deal?
Exactly. The guy doesn’t make Halloween themed cakes either. Or anti-american cakes.
I’m getting married, & I want my wedding to be special. I have visited certain vendors in my community to solicit their business. You know, not a certain single one of them have suggested anything, that means “anything” that they wouldn’t do business with a Gay Couple and or Wedding Event. Because, why. . .for being truthful–This is California, people! Get with the program, vendors want your money, the bigger the wedding event the better! (that’s no pun intended) In other words, Fuck your religion! Keep your fuckin’ religion out of my politics & I’ll keep my politics out of your fuckin’ religion. That goes for you Jerry Brown(dumb ass Governor of California), Al Sharpton(Religious Con & Race Baitor-Tax Evader), Jessie Jackson(notorious hypocrite), last but not least, the survivors of that famous cult of Billy Graham’s pulpit(thank-god he’s dead!) Now, we can only hope the same thing would happen, for that greedy rich bastard, the Pope. . . .If they have to shovel their shit down my throat, they can take the same of my shit and my “Wedding Cake” shoveled down their throats. . .Capische! I’m not angered or mad, I am more disappointed & bitter, that certain entities have to be involved in my nuptials, when it’s none of their god-damn business to be poking their noses where it don’t belong. That’s my say on the matter, and as far as that business is concern about not wanting to make a “Gay Wedding Cake” for the couple. I hope to “god” he loses his business, license, and the right to conduct a service to the public for life!!! Now, see of you can collect welfare!!!
We pay attention to Supreme Court cases because of the effect they have on the larger system, not so much because we care about the incident which started it. Sure, failing to get the cake you wanted from one particular bakery is not a big deal. If this were just about finding a wedding cake, the obvious solution would be to go somewhere else, but that’s not the point. This case was really a test of whether businesses can refuse service to people on the basis of religion. If the decision allows religious discrimination by business owners, that’s a serious problem whether you feel it would affect you personally or not.
When businesses start hanging signs saying your kind of people aren’t welcome, you turn into a second class citizen, and this affects you whether you would have wanted to go to that business or not.
I live in the Bay Area where the idea of businesses refusing to serve queer people seems absurd, but not all queer people live in places like this. Think about how this could affect queer kids I’m conservative areas. We know that lgbt youth are more likely to commit suicide because of shaming and discrimination. Imagine you’re a queer kid in a conservative family and your family takes you to a restaurant with a sign saying they don’t serve gays. The message is you can’t be yourself or you’re not part of society anymore. That’s not what we need.
I don’t pretend to know the particulars but if this couple was unreasonable? Rude? Unrealistic expectations? ( I can’t imagine any gay man being) A business has every right to deny service to ANYONE. let’s get past the decisiveness and stop hiding behind discrimination for every little thing…sometimes an ass is an ass regardless of race color or orientation
Screw the bakery owner for being homophobic and screw the couple for trying to make it a societal issue. In my opinion they are the ones who’ve set the gay community back a decade or so by pushing the issue. Get over yourselves.
The story here came down to “According to the Supreme Court, this (the Commisssioners’ behaviors) qualified as open hostility to Phillips’ beliefs, which violates Phillips constitutional rights.” He does serve gays in general so he’s not discriminatory based upon sexuality; he just doesn’t support same-sex marriage based upon his protected religious beliefs. The Commission, which clearly had an easy win in its hands, got out of control. They blew it with hostility. In the end, for me, Court came down in the center…a balance between two protected classes.
If tRump and his supporters view this as a victory, the worst is yet to come. look what pEnce did in Indiana.
My question is will he continue to refuse gay couples wedding cakes? The court did not say he had the right to fo that based on his religion. They only ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission infringed on his rights. That doesn’t mean what he did isn’t still illegal in Colorado.
This never belonged in the courts! The business owners should be able to accept or decline whatever jobs they choose and, if the bakery’s practices are truly out of sync with the values of the surrounding community, then the community members reject that dissonance by refusing to patronize the business. I wonder if the we’d be equally outraged if the bakery owners were LGBTQ and we learned that they refused to make a cake for Westboro Baptist Church’s anniversary, “Celebrating 65 Years of Hating Fags”. We can’t expect a double standard, though we so often do.
Unfortunately, the First Amendment’s freedom of religion clause as currently interpreted does endorse the right of people, such as the good baker Jack Phillips, to display to the world his bigotry, ignorance, stupidity, meanness, backwardness, and primitive adherence to religious dogmas untied from modern scientific discoveries in genetics. In short, he’s an ass. However, Europe long has sent its religious nut jobs to the New World in the wake of the rise of Protestantism in Europe, thanks to dear Martin Luther nailing his Theses to the Wittenberg church door. (Indeed, my own ancestor was in the founding Puritan group of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and of whom I’m proud that he was fined for not attending the Puritan church services required of everyone.) The primitive Baker Phillips nut job obviously has never read the brilliant 2004 book, an exegesis on gay marriage, by Jonathan Rauch, entitled “Gay Marriage: Why It Is Good for Gays, Good for Straights, and Good for America.” Baker Phillips is of course correct that the family is the cornerstone of a civil and successful society; where he is in egregious error is in miring his beliefs in rules written thousands of years ago for different circumstances and different populations. The historical concept of “family” usually involves a husband and a wife, but nothing except intellectual rigidity limits the concept to JUST a man and a woman. It would have been nice if the Supreme Court had sided with intelligence instead of with ignorance in the case involving gays. The Court has done this before in the case of racial discriminations, as there were religious objections to racial reforms which the Court HAS put down. However, the decision does hinge on some legal technicalities which can be readily distinguishable (in the legal sense) by rulings in future similar cases. The fact that the baker is an ass should NOT have been publicly and blatantly pointed out by the Colorado commission making the ruling, as that WAS an official governmental action prohibited by the First Amendment. The “assiness” of the baker can only be constitutionally expressed by the public exercising its freedom of speech.
It’s about time!!! The baker can freely choose whom to serve and the customer may choose from whom to purchase.
Isn’t freedom great!! It’s a shame the stupid gay couple had to take it all the way to the SC to learn that.
Why support the company that refuse to bake them a cake?! Move on to the next one and blast their business on social media so people know those company are homophobia! I rather save my money for someone who have common belief, LOVE! Not hate. They may be religious but it show a lot hate because they follows what the book says. We, LGBTQ people, have to work harder to have our right. We had to defend ourself because they think we are worthless according to their beliefs. They are the one that spreading the hate. We are the one that is spreading love because we know what it feel like to feel like to be shit. This era is like the whole holocuast of modern day. For instance, Germany won’t serve goods to Jews because of their religious?! something to think about. Honestly! What did we ever did to the person that make them against us because of their belief? We give so much love and help to bring back the humanity instead of bring people down?!
I am glad the supreme court sided with the baker. It is his constitutional right for freedom of religion. Sorry if that offends anyone. But as a community we have no right to force ourselves on others. Our rights should never take away the rights of someone else.
Sorry to all my LGBT friends – a business that is not government affiliated should have the right to refuse service to ANYONE. I am a bottom should I be able to sue a top who is uninterested or unattracted and say he DISCRIMINATED against me by refusing to fuck me? Get it boyz? Fags are the most discriminating people on the plant when they are dishing it out – when taking it they cry foul……just a shame this dude lost his business over the legal issues – in my universe LOSER pays and that couple would have had to make the baker’s legal fees whole.
I agree that they can go to other bakery but the big concern is how many more rights that us older gay fought for in the 70’s going to lose now that the Regligious right are controling the Republican party keep that in mind when you go to the polls in November
The court got it right. The couple could just have gone to another bakery. All they wanted was to create drama and they got their asses kicked to the curb. They were intolerant bigots and they lost.
I always have to laugh when guys “cry” to the media (police, etc) about being discriminated against or are victims of a hate crime. Gay expect the world to cater to them, yet gays on here treat other gays like shit… playing games, ignoring people, telling lies, lie about their HIV status, making excuses, etc. Good for the supreme court to put these idiots in their place.
This is clearly not discrimination unless we want to play that the gay couple went in to a bakery that clearly was a Christian establishment as they have stated they have made that well know upon entering the bakery, they could be seen as discrimination against their religious freedom. This is ridiculous today that we try to force our will on gays, Christians, and political views different then our own. They are Christian and have every right to refuse service as they see fit as a gay bakery can refuse a Christian themed cake that goes against their views. Learn to be respectful of everyone’s views regardless if it differs from your own.
That is a nice colorful cake. Preferences of their customers should have been respected. Gay, straight, white, black, regardless of nationality or color, were all part of the human race. Their is just too much hatred and judgment in this world.
I am a conservative man who reads lots of political commentaries and I happen to like men. I was very pleased with how factual this article was written. Thank you for that. Even the comments were, for the most part, right on. This is not a liberal conservative issue but a constitutional issue. Imagine if a left leaning Hollywood director who was an Atheist was offered to make a Southern Baptist movie and he refused as his heart was not in it. Should he be forced to make the movie as some are saying the baker should of been forced to make the cake? Sword cuts both ways men.
I do not understand man’s need to take the concept of God hostage by excluding others. Never did Jesus say being gay is a sin. He’s yet to let us know now that we’re ‘out’ and about. In the end, I believe in what is right. It is wrong to point at another and say sinner. It’s that simple.
The Court made the correct decision, and it was very limited in scope. The baker doesn’t turn away customers because they are LGBT. Both men had been regular customers for some time. He only declined to make a custom cake for one particular type of event. If they had been looking for a birthday cake, there wouldn’t have been any problem. If the baker had been Muslim, there never would have made it to the Supreme Court because the Colorado civil rights commission wouldn’t have touched it with a 50 foot pole. I see no reason to be offended if someone disapproves of me (regardless of reason) and don’t think it is necessary to try and destroy them. Just move on and find someone who will be willing to take your $$$ and provide the service you want. Trying to put the figurative government gun to someone’s head and demand they do what you want will only breed more and more resentment. People scream about how much they hate religious people whose opinions they don’t like. Go look in the mirror, because you’re being a hypocrite and doing the very thing you’re accusing them of doing.
As a Gay Man I fully support the Cake shop owner. Felicidades!
Your rights don’t Trump anyone else’s rights. And this baker not wanting to bake them a cake is not a civil rights or gay rights issue, it’s them doing what they believe and it being his business he can choose what he wants to put out. Plenty of people that support gays, so go to one of them and get the service you want.
I’m shocked some of you think the ruling is acceptable. The case is about something that’s technically trivial, but sometimes we don’t have any choice as to who provides goods or services.
Would be OK for a doctor or nurse to refuse to treat an apparently gay patient because they don’t believe that God wants gay people to live? Granted, it’s simultaneously a violation of the professional Hippocratic Oath, but maybe that isn’t as important in the eyes of the courts as one’s personal freedom of religion.
Would it be OK for a police officer to not take a report from a gay citizen? Or a firefighter to let a gay person’s house burn down (possibly killing others inside)?
What if no business decided it would accept gay customers at all? Refuse to sell resources to someone long enough, and they’ll simply die-off, realistically speaking. The obvious recourse then is for gay people to live in constant fear. But that was OK back in the old days, right?
They should have lost. If we want to insist that we have the right to be gay, that business owner should also have the right not to make a cake about something he doesn’t
I am happy with the ruling, as it should be looked at as a wake up call for our community. I don’t think it was about the cake… I am going to ask a straight guy thst I want to give him head and if he tells me he’s straight, I am going to sue him for discrimination. If they don’t want to do business with us screw them, move on. Why waste our lives with this. These two guys found each other, the love of thier life, they want their cake too! Now their pissed cause they could eat it… lol..
I understand the whole why would I give my business to bigots point. I agree wit it on a certain level too. However, it’s not about that. It’s about whether or not businesses should be legally allowed to discriminate against us. Personally I don’t think they should. If this were about Jewish people or some other minority no one would be questioning it.
They didn’t lose, and he didn’t win. It was a ‘narrow’ ruling and is more like: He has the right, under his religious to not perform the task, and they have the right to expect services as long as they are not being denied dignity or told they are ‘less than human.’ The court said IT WOULD revisit more specific issues in future IF they involved the refusal of civil rights.
“Their hope is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” — Justice A. Kennedy’s
This guy only wants his right to believe as he does… why do we wish to force something on him
We want freedom but should we take his to get ours? I vote no
Please correct me if I’m wrong on this:
If I remember correctly, the Couple went to the bakery to get a cake made in Colorado. The wedding was held in Providence, Mass. Cause when I plan a huge event like a wedding the very forest thing I do is order a cake that has tonne transported 2,000+ miles via plane. Was someone going to check the cake? Were they going to carry it on their lap? I’m throwing the bs flag on this. Total set up on the baker to get money from a lawsuit. It’s bs.
Crappola like this law suit makes “us” look bad. Eff’it…. if a baker didn’t want to make my damned cake…. I wouldn’t want him anywhere near it. That baker was certainly not the only freakin’ cake maker in a 25 mile radius. Move on. No need to make a federal case if it, literally. If getting turned down just crushed them … holy crap. Really. Grow a pair…. between the two of you, grow one damned pair. Geez.
From a Business Point of View:
I think it is strange that a business person would choose to not earn money for their business. But as long as the business explained in a professional manner that the specific cake being requested is not something that they have the capacity to make; than the whole matter is moot and the couple should have moved onto a different baker.
I also don’t understand why the customers were trying to force a business to serve them if the services they wanted were not being provided.
Personal Point of View:
It sucks that someone was discriminating – even though it is founded on their rights of religious beliefs. However, I don’t feel the couple should have pushed this issue and tried to force someone to go against their religious beliefs in the first place. That may make some people mad, but that is how I see it. Please understand that I feel for anyone who is discriminated against, especially in the face of what is supposed to be a happy occasion.
This ruling is mired in constitutional legalisms. Congress has the right to regulate interstate commerce. There are the First Amendment freedoms, of religion, of establishment of religion, of speech (and the blurring of what constitutes “speech”). This case does have the earmarks of a set-up for a constitutional challenge, which proved unsuccessful on its particular facts. There is no dispute—the baker is an ignorant ass, and the fact that he cloaks his stupid ignorance in his right to freedom of religion does not in any way diminish the assessment of him as an ignorance ass. However, as a practical matter, the best resolution of this would be for the baker to be put out of business by people taking their business to more enlightened bakeries. What I find disturbing is that the Court is not being consistent in its reasoning when compared with results involving “more favored” discriminated-against groups as opposed to the gays. Given the precedences on which the court COULD have relied to produce a different result, given the legal principle of legal precedences, it is unsettling that the Court refused to put its money where is its mouth has been with other groups when it came to discrimination against gays.
I am hoping the comments here are not a reliable cross section of the gay community. Reading the number of comments from, I assume, gay men here who have no problem being discriminated against, I wonder how we ever won the rights have. You guys may have no problem with “No wedding cake for you [email protected]@ots” but I am glad the Constitution does not condone it.