Will Supreme Court Let Us Have Our Cake?

  • Will Supreme Court Let Us Have Our Cake?

Will Supreme Court Let Us Have Our Cake?

She said the Supreme Court's constrained discourse regulation "prohibits the commission from requesting that craftsmen outline custom articulation that passes on thoughts they consider shocking".

After a five-year legal battle, the Supreme Court began hearing arguments in theMasterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case Tuesday.

Waggoner argued that a person viewing one of Phillips' custom wedding cakes - his "artistic expression" - would "understand that it celebrates and expresses support for the couple's marriage".

The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state.

The case concerns Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who refused to make a cake for gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins' wedding, arging that doing so would violate his "religious beliefs".

But when the subject turned to free exercise of religion, Kennedy was infuriated by a part of the record where one of the commissioners on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who ruled against Phillips, noted that using freedom of religion to justify discrimination is a "despicable piece of rhetoric". And it doesn't seem like Colorado was very respectful or tolerant of the baker's religious views here, he said. "I would not like to utilize my aesthetic gifts to make something that conflicted with my Christian confidence", he said in a meeting, noticing that he has additionally declined to make cakes to observe Halloween.

As anyone might expect, Mullins and Craig see the case through an altogether extraordinary focal point: separation. They argued the state's public accommodation law prohibited him from discriminating against them on the basis of sexual orientation.

The city and current Houston Mayor Sylvester Turner, also a Democrat, appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, saying the dispute had already been settled because the Obergefell ruling extended to married same-sex couples the "constellation of benefits that the states have linked to marriage". Such a ruling again could be appealed to the nation's top court. Even the Texas Supreme Court agreed, rejecting the case when it came to it in September 2016.

Since then Phillips has received the backing of the Trump administration as the Justice Department filed a brief on his behalf in September.

The Kentucky court recently struck an interesting balance between the free speech and religious freedom rights of businesses which oppose messages based upon their content, and gay people who insist upon being served by a business regardless of their sexual orientation.

The couple documented a protest with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which led to support them, refering to a state against segregation law. They've also said that allowing business owners to refuse service based on religious beliefs could set a precedent for legalizing further discrimination. "Could a hotel owner refuse to rent a room to an interracial couple because their religious belief believes that the races should not mix, or could a business owner refuse to hire a single mother because their religion believes that mothers should be married?" The Texas Supreme Court even admitted it only took up the case after receiving "emails, letters and postcards" from individual citizens. Our country's highest court has let stand a ruling by the Texas Supreme Court that says gay couples are not entitled to the same spousal employee insurance benefits as heterosexual couples.