By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - US Supreme Court: Christian baker does not have to bake 'the gay cake'

Supreme Court rules on narrow grounds for baker who refused to create same-sex couple's wedding cake

Holding: The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actions in assessing a cakeshop owner’s reasons for declining to make a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding celebration violated the free exercise clause.

Judgment: Reversed, 7-2


Around the Network

I can't disagree with that ruling even tho I don't like the fact that he refused to bake the cake.

I agree with the ruling. Businesses (except utilities) should be able operate how they want for the most part.

its his business to lose as he will not make money for the job. its the right ruling. plus are there not other bake shops around? victimization BS.

I guess some think the police should bust in his shop and force him to make it.


Aeolus451 said:
I agree with the ruling. Businesses (except utilities) should be able operate how they want for the most part.

What about property managers and developers?

Around the Network

Sticky situation. Businesses don't have to serve individual customers, but would this fly if it was store policy or religious principle to, say, not serve black people?

Why not just ask for a cake and then decorate however desired after it has been purchased?

From wikipedia:
"The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise.[29] Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. Kennedy stated that "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".[30][31]"

Unless I'm misunderstanding (and perhaps my memory of how the US justice system works is flawed), this ruling isn't of the same type as the supreme court rulings that sets presedence for how the law is interpreted in future cases - it only relates to how this specific case was handled by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Just thought I should add this.

I think this is an interesting point that is brought up:

"To Phillips,his claim that using his artistic skills  to  make  an  expressive  statement,  a  wedding  endorsement  in his  own  voice  and  of  his  own  creation,  has  a  significant  First Amendment  speech  component  and  implicates  his  deep  and  sincere religious  beliefs."

This isn't really an angle that I thought about upon first hearing about this case. That being said (and without full knowledge of how this individual runs his bakery), I can't really agree that this is a valid argument, because I do not agree that baking a cake for someone constitutes a "wedding endorsement", unless the baker evaluates the strength and validity of the relationships of each couple he services. I cannot imagine that being a common practice among bakers...

RBG needs to retire already