U.S. Supreme Court Rules for Cake Maker

[James Madison]

Breaking news is that the Supreme Court of the USA has ruled in favour of the cake maker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding. So now there is legal precedent from them that both money and cakes are speech. Methinks they like to talk.

The decision is more nuanced. The decision is rooted in viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the free speech clause, and hostility towards religion, in violation of the free exercise clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

You clearly haven’t read the opinion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.

SCOTUS voided the decision simply because they think the board was 'hostile'. And the news media isn't doing a good job at making this substantial distinction. That isn't helped with SCOTUS taking up a huge case of religious rights v civil rights and botching the punt, in an oddly nearer unanimous decision than these decisions would expectedly be held at.

Hostility was not the sole basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ronburgundy]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

The decision is more nuanced. The decision is rooted in viewpoint discrimination, which is prohibited under the free speech clause, and hostility towards religion, in violation of the free exercise clause.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except there was zero evidence that the law was being unevenly applied against their religious belief. Rather, the opinion suggests that merely not giving certain religious views special additional respect when applying the law is sufficient for the case against a person to be thrown out. Still a violation of establishment.

Also, it suggests that if a gay couple walks in tomorrow and is refused by this baker, the Colorado board should be able to enact the identical punishment and just be more polite about what they say.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, it suggests that if a gay couple walks in tomorrow and is refused by this baker, the Colorado board should be able to enact the identical punishment and just be more polite about what they say.

And we go back to court to answer the fucking question that should have been addressed in this case!

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Will we need to bring back the Green Book for gay people now?

I don't think it compares.

 

[ronburgundy]

The opinion hinges heavily upon the baker's reasons being religious. Rather than simply point out that the Commission was insulting and inconsistent in its application of the law, they harp on how they were insulting to the baker's "religious beliefs".
Thus strongly implying that had everything in the case been identical, but the baker merely said "I don't like gays" instead of hiding his bigotry behind religion that SCOTUS would have ruled differently.

That implied special treatment of views deemed "religious" is the source of confusion about what this ruling establishes regarding special exemptions of religion and is a form of religious discrimination by the SCOUTS ruling.

Note the opinion makes a pathetically weak argument that the Commission only made their ruling because the baker's motives were religious, a conclusion made implausible by the near certain fact that most or all of the Commission members shared the baker's religion and thus were clearly objecting only to anti-gay discrimination. Plus the Commission had applied the same statutues numerous times to instances of discrimination where no specific religious rationale was given. The lack of evidence supporting this conclusion by SCOTUS is shown in their attempt to make that invalid comparison to cases where rightist attempted to react to the initial ruling by making requests for cakes with explicit homophobic hate-speech on them. For SCOTUS to equate people being denied service for being gay with people being denied service for requesting a product containing hate-speech completely ignores the whole basis of all discrimination laws, including the Federal Civil Rights Act.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

State law at the timealso afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive.

This is what really gets me. "Offensive". A cake can not be offensive, only what is written on it can become offensive. It was a wedding cake, and it was asked to have crude text added to it. Simply feeling it is against one's religion to have a gay marriage doesn't make a cake for a gay wedding be "offensive".

 

[dismal]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except there was zero evidence that the law was being unevenly applied against their religious belief.

Hmm, are you saying this guy perjured himself? Because this seems to be some evidence:

William Jack is a Colorado citizen and Christian educator who teaches nationally on issues of Christian worldview, apologetics, and leadership. In 2014 Jack was refused service at three Colorado bakeries when he requested two cakes in the shape of a Bible to be decorated with the text of three Bible verses. After being refused service because of his creed—with the overt Christian message of his desired cake design—Jack filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division for violation of Colorado’s public accommodations statute, C.R.S.§ 24-34-601(2). Jack’s charges of discrimination were denied by the Division and upheld by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission largely because the bakeries refused to make a cake with a message the bakers considered objectionable.

...

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has demonstrated a willingness to allow bakers to decline to make a custom cake when the message of the cake is objectionable or offensive to the baker, but only if the rejected message is religious or critical of same-sex marriage. A baker must create a cake when the message endorses same-sex marriage. Amici William Jack requested custom cakes with a religious message at three different Denver bakeries, only to be refused service because the bakers disagreed with the religious message. In a set of results that cannot be reconciled with the Masterpiece Cakeshop charge of discrimination,the Commission rejected Jack’s charges of discrimination, thereby allowed bakers to decline to make a cake deemed offensive. In this process the Commission expressed hostility towards Jack’s traditional religious views.

The Commission’s disfavored treatment of a religious customer exposes the arbitrary and unequal enforcement practices of Colorado’s public accommodations laws. The troubling inconsistency in enforcement both transgresses traditional notions of Due Process and proves that the law cannot be considered neutral and generally applicable for purposes of the Free Exercise clause. Furthermore, the lack of consistent enforcement precludes the Commission from satisfying the strictures of strict scrutiny.

Finally, by allowing three bakeries to deny service to a religious patron, the Commission has diminished the dignity of Jack’s traditional, if currently unpopular, views about same-sex marriage. The Commission’s actions thereby threaten to perpetuate dignitary harms on many other religious citizens in the state under the guise of nondiscrimination. As Jack explained to the Commission, he was demeaned for his Christian creed and the three bakers’prejudicial actions discriminated against him for holding sincerely held religious beliefs, as expressed by requested the text of some Bible verses to appear on cakes. The Court should reverse the decision below.

https://www.americanbar.org/content...micus-pet-william-jack-et-al.authcheckdam.pdf

 

[James Madison]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

Thus, the ruling is idiotic and completely mangles any reasonable interpretation of the free exercise clause. It cannot be used to give exemptions to religious motives to act in ways that would otherwise be illegal, because any such exemption is a clear violation of the establishment clause.

The only valid ruling would be one based on an argument that would equally apply to cake makers who simply said "because we don't like homosexuals." Being forced by the government to rationalize one's action by appealing to particular religious ideas they deem "legitimate" is about a clear an instance of government force promoting some religious views over others as you can get.

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except there was zero evidence that the law was being unevenly applied against their religious belief. Rather, the opinion suggests that merely not giving certain religious views special additional respect when applying the law is sufficient for the case against a person to be thrown out. Still a violation of establishment.

Also, it suggests that if a gay couple walks in tomorrow and is refused by this baker, the Colorado board should be able to enact the identical punishment and just be more polite about what they say.

“ the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages.

In other words, when the message to be placed on the cake was an anti-gay message, the baker won, the anti-gay message customer lost, and no violation of the public accommodation law. However, when the cake maker refuses a specific and narrow service on the basis of his religious belief same sex marriage is wrong, the customer wins, the baker loses. Common theme? A particular viewpoint and belief consistently loses, a contrary view and belief wins, hence, the viewpoint discrimination component.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, it suggests that if a gay couple walks in tomorrow and is refused by this baker, the Colorado board should be able to enact the identical punishment and just be more polite about what they say.

And we go back to court to answer the fucking question that should have been addressed in this case!

The commission’s conclusion the baker violated Colorado’s public accommodation law was “invalidated,” along with the state court of appeals decision upholding the commission’s outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

The opinion hinges heavily upon the baker's reasons being religious. Rather than simply point out that the Commission was insulting and inconsistent in its application of the law, they harp on how they were insulting to the baker's "religious beliefs".
Thus strongly implying that had everything in the case been identical, but the baker merely said "I don't like gays" instead of hiding his bigotry behind religion that SCOTUS would have ruled differently.

That implied special treatment of views deemed "religious" is the source of confusion about what this ruling establishes regarding special exemptions of religion and is a form of religious discrimination by the SCOUTS ruling.

Note the opinion makes a pathetically weak argument that the Commission only made their ruling because the baker's motives were religious, a conclusion made implausible by the near certain fact that most or all of the Commission members shared the baker's religion and thus were clearly objecting only to anti-gay discrimination. Plus the Commission had applied the same statutues numerous times to instances of discrimination where no specific religious rationale was given. The lack of evidence supporting this conclusion by SCOTUS is shown in their attempt to make that invalid comparison to cases where rightist attempted to react to the initial ruling by making requests for cakes with explicit homophobic hate-speech on them. For SCOTUS to equate people being denied service for being gay with people being denied service for requesting a product containing hate-speech completely ignores the whole basis of all discrimination laws, including the Federal Civil Rights Act.

Your closer to accurately restating what the majority opinion says but still incorrect.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Also, it suggests that if a gay couple walks in tomorrow and is refused by this baker, the Colorado board should be able to enact the identical punishment and just be more polite about what they say.

And we go back to court to answer the fucking question that should have been addressed in this case!

The commission’s conclusion the baker violated Colorado’s public accommodation law was “invalidated,” along with the state court of appeals decision upholding the commission’s outcome.

But did SCOTUS rule that the conclusion was "invalid"? We know they tossed conclusion, but they didn't seem to find the conclusion incorrect, just that the baker's beliefs weren't given appropriate care.

 

[Derec]

State law at the timealso afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive.

This is what really gets me. "Offensive". A cake can not be offensive, only what is written on it can become offensive. It was a wedding cake, and it was asked to have crude text added to it. Simply feeling it is against one's religion to have a gay marriage doesn't make a cake for a gay wedding be "offensive".

What "crude text" in particular? On the level of "summa <bleep> laude" on a graduation cake?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

7-2, at least this wasn't another 5-4 case.


So, correct me if I'm wrong, SCOTUS reversed the case, not because they deemed baking a cake as protected speech (though note its expressiveness for some reason), but because they think the Colorado board that oversaw the case wasn't neutral to the plantiff's religious belief?

SCOTUS managed to punt the ball, but give possession to the kicking team. SCOTUS intervened in an individual case to cast judgment just on this one case. It appears that this case provides no guidance as far as whom wins out in a religious rights v civil rights situation. Thanks SCOTUS for wasting our fucking time.

- - - Updated - - -

This is the thing, SCOTUS didn't rule on anything other than the Colorado board were hostile to the baker's religious views. They don't seem to speak on whether the board made the right call, just that the methods they appeared to use in making their call were not neutral. It seems to be a bizarre punt. It'd be like the NFL reversing a football game outcome because they thought the officiating crew was concentrating too much on holding calls at the line of scrimmage.

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except there was zero evidence that the law was being unevenly applied against their religious belief. Rather, the opinion suggests that merely not giving certain religious views special additional respect when applying the law is sufficient for the case against a person to be thrown out. Still a violation of establishment.

Also, it suggests that if a gay couple walks in tomorrow and is refused by this baker, the Colorado board should be able to enact the identical punishment and just be more polite about what they say.

“ the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages.

In other words, when the message to be placed on the cake was an anti-gay message, the baker won, the anti-gay message customer lost, and no violation of the public accommodation law. However, when the cake maker refuses a specific and narrow service on the basis of his religious belief same sex marriage is wrong, the customer wins, the baker loses. Common theme? A particular viewpoint and belief consistently loses, a contrary view and belief wins, hence, the viewpoint discrimination component.

Bakers denied consumers the right to customize a cake with an offensive message added to it verses a gay couple denied a wedding cake without a customized message (apparently the cake is a message and speech to some people). These two things are not remotely equivalent. To say a cake with no textual message is equivalent to a cake with an outrightly offensive message is completely foolish.

 

[dismal]

Hostility towards a religious belief was one basis of the opinion. Viewpoint discrimination was another.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Except there was zero evidence that the law was being unevenly applied against their religious belief. Rather, the opinion suggests that merely not giving certain religious views special additional respect when applying the law is sufficient for the case against a person to be thrown out. Still a violation of establishment.

Also, it suggests that if a gay couple walks in tomorrow and is refused by this baker, the Colorado board should be able to enact the identical punishment and just be more polite about what they say.

“ the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages.

In other words, when the message to be placed on the cake was an anti-gay message, the baker won, the anti-gay message customer lost, and no violation of the public accommodation law. However, when the cake maker refuses a specific and narrow service on the basis of his religious belief same sex marriage is wrong, the customer wins, the baker loses. Common theme? A particular viewpoint and belief consistently loses, a contrary view and belief wins, hence, the viewpoint discrimination component.

Bakers denied consumers the right to customize a cake with an offensive message added to it verses a gay couple denied a wedding cake without a customized message (apparently the cake is a message and speech to some people). These two things are not remotely equivalent. To say a cake with no textual message is equivalent to a cake with an outrightly offensive message is completely foolish.

Well, but Jimmy, to be fair Colorado doesn't have access to you 24-7 to decree what is and isn't offensive for everyone. They have to deal with people who stubbornly cling to their own opinion of what offends them.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

Supreme Court Rules for Baker in Gay Wedding Cake Case But Carefully Avoids Central Debate - This 7-2 ruling is more about Colorado's biased enforcement of discrimination law than freedom of expression

The Supreme Court ruled 7–2 this morning that the State of Colorado erred in punishing a baker for refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the approach the court took guarantees that this debate is far from over.

The court did not rule that cake-baking is a protected form of free expression. Instead it said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) showed open hostility to the baker's attempt to assert his religious beliefs as a reason to reject the couple's request, and that the state thus did not neutrally enforce its antidiscrimination law.

In Masterpiece Bakeshop Ltd. vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, bakery owner Jake Phillips refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because he had religious objections to same-sex marriage. Colorado ruled that this counted as discrimination against gay people, which violates state law. Phillips countered that he would sell any other baked goods to gay people, but he wouldn't make or sell goods for same-sex wedding ceremonies, because he felt as though he was being compelled to support an idea (that gay marriage is valid) that he did not believe.

The court punted on the issue of whether creating a wedding cake (or other wedding-related goods) is a form of free expression. Instead the justices ruled that the CCRC took a dismissive, hostile approach toward Phillips' religious-based objections when compared to other kinds of cases that came before them

This isn't really much of a win for any of the sides involved.

 

[steve_bank]

As much as gays have been abused by religion, the rights of the religious can not be dismissed arbitrarily giving judicial preference to gays to address grievances.

My point it is a two way street. Christians and gays regardless of mutual hostility have to acknowledge each others rights.. Obviously easier said then done.

The problem is the general nature of the 1st Amendment. From what I read freedom of religion and separation of church and state were enacted to protect minority from majority Christians, not evil atheists and Muslims. Catholics are free to practice all their rituals. Protestants are free to use whatever bible they want and interpret as they will.

The obvious problem is when the religious go from freedom of practice to acting out on others. The woman, a civil servant in Tenn, refused to issue marriage licenses to gays although it was legal. Civil law protecting rights mist trump religious interpretation as god's will, otherwise we end up with the old European Christian kind of conflicts. Historically the greatest danger to Christians was other Christians with divergent views. Catholics, Mormons, and Jews in the USA.

Not denying service in a public venue is obviously a requirement for general order in a diverse society. Denying a custom cake with something offensive is a grey area. How about a cake with explicit sex depicted? Can a bakery refuse saying it is offensive? The question is more general than religion. Can a gay bakery refuse custom service a cake for skinheads with Adolf Hitler on It?

SCOTUS punned for a good reason.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

One difference between the cake maker in Colorado and the civil servant in Tennessee is that one of them is a government employee. I hold civil servants to far stricter standards than people outside government.

 

[steve_bank]

One difference between the cake maker in Colorado and the civil servant in Tennessee is that one of them is a government employee. I hold civil servants to far stricter standards than people outside government.

Yes, but both cases illustrate the problem Interpreting the `1st amendment which Christians do use to justify encroachment on others.

I would like the clause 'Freedom from religion' added to the `1st Amendment.

 

[Copernicus]

It is worth reading the dissent by Ginsberg (joined by Sotomayor). She disputed the Court's ruling on several grounds, including that she saw no evidence of serious religious discrimination in the Commission's ruling and that the Colorado Supreme Court had considered the case de novo--as a case of pure anti-gay discrimination that was prohibited under Colorado law. It seems that there was no real free speech issue here, because the baker refused to sell the cake purely on the ground that he did not make cakes for gay weddings. The SCOTUS ruling ignored that issue, seeking instead to imagine an anti-religious motive in the commission's decision-making process. Ginsberg could find no evidence of that, and she said that the majority opinion did not mention any such evidence.

Here is the actual ruling, for those who are interested: MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL., PETITIONERS v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET AL.