world

U.S. Supreme Court rules for baker in gay wedding cake case

58 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2018 AFP

©2018 GPlusMedia Inc.

58 Comments
Login to comment

A man will bake for whom he chooses, you can't force someone to make a cake.

4 ( +17 / -13 )

Next step will be making it constitutional for restaurants to refuse service to people of color because the great white father in the sky told them to. It gets easier to understand what happened in Germany in the 1930's every day.

-5 ( +11 / -16 )

CrazyJoeToday  07:14 am JST

Next step will be making it constitutional for restaurants to refuse service to people of color because the great white father in the sky told them to. It gets easier to understand what happened in Germany in the 1930's every day.

True, but this specific verdict doesn't seem to lead to that. IANAL, but to me this ruling reads more like an awkward shrug by people who don't know how to reconcile religious rights and individual liberties in the current legal climate. It's not a giant victory for Christians who want to be bigots, it's just kicking the can down the road for someone else to sort out.

Which is in itself a kind of victory for Christians who want to be bigots, just a smaller, potentially temporary one.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

And if a Muslim couple were to request a cake from this so-called baker, he can refuse based on his religion? Can I refuse service to everyone who is not my religion? How about my skin color? Can I refuse them, too? And if he gets in a taxi or Uber driven by someone not his religion, he will be okay with them refusing to allow him in their car?

8 ( +15 / -7 )

I'm with Burning Bush. I don't see why a baker shouldn't refuse to bake a cake if he doesn't want to whatever the reason. I don't see why this has to be the subject of a court ruling or why religion gets dragged into it.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Religious freedom trumps almost all other rights, especially in a family owned business that doesn't have any govt contracts.

It was the religious aspect which made this case different to the Supremes.

6 ( +7 / -1 )

It's not the problem of baking a cake because they are gay, but the message that they were to place on the cake.

6 ( +8 / -2 )

Ah, the tolerance of the religious.

All created in the image of god.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

It was a clear case - justice prevailed. Yay.

5 ( +11 / -6 )

Well, you can be sure lots of people will give this reason to discriminate against gays.

It will be hard to be LGBT in the US from now on (even harder than before). Good luck...!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

I'm with Burning Bush. I don't see why a baker shouldn't refuse to bake a cake if he doesn't want to whatever the reason. I don't see why this has to be the subject of a court ruling or why religion gets dragged into it.

What I don't like about this entire story is, had this been a Muslim couple, this would not have had the attention that this story received. It would have been accepted and the couple would have no other choice, but to move on, the couple wouldn't have dared tried to challenge their religious convictions. So I also agree, you back for whomever you want, you don't like it, there are thousands of other cake shops that will cater to your needs.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

t's not the problem of baking a cake because they are gay, but the message that they were to place on the cake.

It is possible a cake that contains words or symbols might enjoy greater protection than a cake with no obvious expressive meaning. But that’s speculation. The case wasn’t decided on that basis.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Freedom to assert your religious right to be a bigot. Yay.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

And here we go. The legacy of the McConnell Court will be ugly.

So now an atheist baker could refuse to bake a cake with the word God on it. Right?

6 ( +9 / -3 )

What is most troubling about this case is that two gay men are claiming intolerance but are willfully intolerant towards another person. They are asserting a right whose end result is to infringe upon the bakers First amendment religious and free speech rights.

The baker doesn’t have a problem serving homosexuals. He doesn’t even have a problem selling them an undecorated wedding cake. He just has an issue with lending his artistic skills with a message that is against his personal religious beliefs. The men are activists who sought out this confrontation to make a political point. Notice they didn’t target a Muslim baker. Their lawsuit was a very mean spirited and intolerant act.

Unfortunately the Justices settled very little with this decision. We will very likely see a very similar case in a year or two from a photographer or another baker. Militant homosexuals will not be satisfied until religious people are driven into the closet.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

Soon Doctors will refuse giving medical care to injured/sick gays as being against their religion.

Why would a doctor go against their own professional creed? I can only imagine an abortion doctor going to such an extreme - but there is not much chance they will encounter a homosexual patient.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

You operate a retail business open to the public, yet you choose to deny service to someone else because of their color, creed, or religious beliefs? One word defines you: intolerant.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

I think this only works if the religious types think of it just in terms of Christianity. For example if a Muslim Uber driver said he refuses to drive women then there would be an uproar about Sharia Law taking over and how they need to respect the laws of this country,

I don’t think they get that these free passes will be extended to all religions, making discrimination laws mostly optional based on faith. You might be the Kings of Christianity but sooner or later you’re going to be on the wrong side of someone’s else’s discrimination. It’s just a matter of time.

Finally, we are going to have a country of patchwork discrimination laws. If you own an apartment building and don’t service gay people, you get fined. If you own a cake shop and do the same nothing happens to you.

Just a mess of a Pandor’s Box, all to appease some mythical figures.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Funny how NFL players should do "free speech on their own time" not at work, but it's ok for freedom of religion.

Double standard and all...

3 ( +7 / -4 )

1 ( +2 / -1 )

The baker doesn’t have a problem serving homosexuals. He doesn’t even have a problem selling them an undecorated wedding cake. He just has an issue with lending his artistic skills with a message that is against his personal religious beliefs. 

He flatly refused to sell a cake that was to be used in a gay wedding. It is similar to a  winemaker who won’t sell wine to Catholic priests for mass or a kosher store that won't sell bread to non Jews, or a fabric maker who won't sell to Muslims knowing the intended use was a hijab, etc. All of which would presumably run afoul of Colorado’s public accommodations law, which prohibits religious discrimination.

3 ( +7 / -4 )

"Religious freedom" cannot be used to justify bigotry. All religions are invented by humans; if I invent a new religion that says "god" created some races as superior to others can I then use "religious freedom" as an argument for racial discrimination? Of course not, and the same should apply in this case.

This baker's religion does not forbid him from making cakes, so he should make cakes for anyone and everyone who wants one.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

There's an awful lot of knee jerk reaction that pops up with this topic.

What about freedom of choice?

Surely the baker is free to refuse to go against what he believes.

And a gay couple think they have the right to force him to go against his belief.

They could have just gone to another baker.

I wonder if they deliberately sought out this guy to make a fuss about it!

6 ( +10 / -4 )

And if a Muslim couple were to request a cake from this so-called baker, he can refuse based on his religion? 

He could, but he would be violating anti-discrimination law. If this baker had refused service to the samesex couple based on the fact that they were gay he would likewise be in violation of US anti-discrimination law. But this baker did not refuse them services based on their sexual preferences he merely declined to participate, as a vendor, in a occasion that was celebrating an institution which conflicted with his religious beliefs and was not recognised by the state of Colorado. Was that discrimination? Maybe. But this ruling does nothing to clear that up.

The Court reversed the Colorado Civil rights Commission's decision not because they sided with the baker's position but because the Commision failed to meet the standard of religious neutrality as outlined in the Free Exercise Clause of the 1st Amendment. Colorado lost because they put their biases on display, not only in this case but in a number of past decisions, and it went against them. Justice Kennedy, in his majority opinion, stated that he would have been inclined to find in favor of the Commision if they had been sufficiently neutral in their evaluation.

The Court's decision merely served to rein in the State's enthusiasm and set a precedence on the level of religious neutrality expected in future litigations. As far as anti-discrimination laws and the rights to free exercise are concerned, they haven't quite got the light schedule worked out at that intersection yet.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

There was another transaction in Denver around the same time in which the baker was willing to sell a customer the very same items that she would sell to any other customer; what he did with them after leaving her store was, quite literally, none of her business. In this case I believe it was a Bible-shaped cake and icing knowing the user was going to copy anti-gay bible verses. She simply refused to do it herself which would be to create an image or message which conflicted with her moral beliefs.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

This ruling enables businesses to discriminate based on personal beliefs - what next, places refusing to serve people based on gender, colour or religion? What about height or accent?

Religion should never be able to trump the law.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Let's see how many bakers can get away with refusing customers who are overtly religious (read, Christian).

My advice, let the word out who these bigoted bakers are, and stop doing business with them. They often go bankrupt when their sole customers are bigoted, bible bashers. Oops, didn't they already close up shop?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Let them eat cake!

2 ( +3 / -1 )

U.S. Supreme court prevails over the whiny 4%. Yay.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

This ruling enables businesses to discriminate based on personal beliefs - what next, places refusing to serve people based on gender, colour or religion? What about height or accent?

The religion excuse is very selective.

Part of the reason many ‘Christians’ are selective is many of them don’t actually know what’s in their books. Most of them would find reasons to justify discrimination against themselves if they bothered reading them.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Just buy a cake elsewhere and get over yourselves.

7 ( +11 / -4 )

While i do not agree with this man,like at all, he has a right to deny service for any reason he deems fit. Wanna know why? because it's a privately owned business. That means it's his place so he can chose to server whatever and whoever he wants based on his opinions. it's just simple logic really. I don't even understand what the big deal here is. just go to some other place to buy cake for Christ's sake

1 ( +6 / -5 )

The SC decision was more about how the baker was treated by the Colorado commission. It shows that this court will not tolerate all the anti-religious bigotry being spewed by intolerant liberals.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

it's just simple logic really.

Maybe to you but not the Supreme Court which unanimously rejected this argument back in the 1960's when restaurant owners only wanted to serve black customers take out food but wouldn't allow them sit at a table.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Religion should never be able to trump the law.

But freedom of religion is the law in the USA and one of the highest laws there. It is a flaw when we disagree with it and it is brilliant when we agree.

Exercising your religion is protected. It is a core value.

1st Amendment states:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

6 ( +6 / -0 )

The baker doesn’t have a problem serving homosexuals. He doesn’t even have a problem selling them an undecorated wedding cake. He just has an issue with lending his artistic skills with a message that is against his personal religious beliefs.

Indeed, a very important detail.

I wonder if they deliberately sought out this guy to make a fuss about it!

I think that is exactly what they did.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

But freedom of religion is the law in the USA and one of the highest laws there. It is a flaw when we disagree with it and it is brilliant when we agree.

Many countries have freedom of religion, but they don't let personal beliefs ignore the law.

There was a similar case in Northern Ireland, the bakers broke the law as they thought their beliefs meant the could ignore the law. They are challenging the decisoin in the Supreme Court. https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/01/gay-marriage-cake-ashers-bakery-northern-ireland-uk-supreme-court

0 ( +2 / -2 )

There was a similar case in Northern Ireland, the bakers broke the law as they thought their beliefs meant the could ignore the law.

Some parts of NI/6 counties makes the US bible belt look postively enlightened.

Should religious freedoms allow the right to discriminate? I don't think so.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Should religious freedoms allow the right to discriminate? I don't think so.

I think like this, if you believe in God, that’s your right and if you don’t believe in same sex marriage, that is your absolute prerogative. No one has the right to bully you in accepting any type of lifestyle you don’t agree with. If you don’t want to make a cake for someone because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, then go and find someone that will cater to your needs, there are thousands of businesses that will gladly take you and serve you. I would never sue someone because they have a certain religious point of view. My opinion is, ok, you just lost a customer and good luck to you. Now if someone says, I curse and hate you, then it’s a different story.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

Speaking of discrimination. Some on here won't listen to discourse if ones Russian. Pointed it out earlier. Mysteriously removed.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

There's always been homosexuals. Even the word "sodomy" comes from the ancient city of Sodom. In civilized societies, there is supposed to be a "standard" for living. Sodom had allowed their standard to become very low.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

If you don’t want to make a cake for someone because it conflicts with your religious beliefs, then go and find someone that will cater to your needs, there are thousands of businesses that will gladly take you and serve you.

That depends on where you live primarily. What Colorado cannot do is force bakers to make cakes celebrating a gay marriage when it allows other bakers not to make cakes criticizing homosexuality.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Should religious freedoms allow the right to discriminate? I don't think so.

Should laws meant to protect a persons preference for same sex relationships allow the right to discriminate? I don’t think so - and I am not even religious.

This is simply a case of conflicting rights. The political Left, as usual, wants to use the force of government to eliminate opposition to their preferred side instead of seeking out an accommodation for everyone. The anti-Christian rhetoric indicates that the Left wants nothing short of the elimination of religious views from public - which is a totalitarian impulse that Democrats can’t seem to shake. This is obviously not what the Founders intended when they wrote the First Amendment to protect religious freedoms and freedom of speech.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

The court said,

“the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

I'm most on the "right", but not when it comes to discrimination, following a fairy tail as a guide for life is wrong. Your "rights" are fine, until they negatively impact others. At least that's what my imaginary friend Bob tell me.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I don't know why it is so hard for people to understand the following:

First, freedom and equality conflict as often as they compliment each other. That is what is going on here. There is no perfect answer to where we're ought to draw the line, and this case is pretty much in fuzziest part of the fuzzy zone. This case is particular and hard to analogize to the general problem of religion liberty conflicting with the right to equally before the law.

Second, a really important freedom is the freedom from a state sanctioned religion, said another way, the right to exercise any or no religion. It's so important that it is very first part of the very first item in our Bill of Rights, -- which is all about -- well, 9/10s about -- preserving and protecting INDIVIDUALS against a coercive government.

Again, the Establishment Clause is BEFORE the right to Free Speech and Free Association. That. Is. How. Important. It. Is. Because the Founders got it right. The most important freedoms we have are a secular state that protects our ability to gather together and say things the state may not like.

Third, the right for homosexuals to equality before the law -- unlike the Free Exercise Clause -- is NOT IN THE CONSTITUTION. That matters. Because the rule of law means just that;

the Rule of Law.

You need a Law, and than you need to follow the rules that the law makes. Here, we have a judicial extension of the 14th Amendment, which is good law, but not as good the First Amendment.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

I think the right to religious freedom should be limited to one's personal practice and observation of a religion, and only to the extent that it does not affect anyone else. As I noted above, all religions and their "rules" are created by humans and no religion has any more validity then any other. Anyone can make up a religion and anyone can claim that their religion prevents them from doing this or that. If those religious "rules" are something like "you cannot eat pork", then there is no problem, as that only affects you. But if the "rules" (these are all rules made-up by humans, remember) say, e.g. "you cannot interact with homosexuals", then your freedom to observe those rules should be restricted by law. To have it any other way can only result in legalised discrimination, or worse.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Hey people, do you realize those clients were forcing a person (baker) apparently deliberately to create a personal message (made of his own hand) to promote a sexual orientation ?

You can't force somebody to write "x is nice" if he thinks x is not nice, whatever notion it is.

Simple. It is not a matter of race, religion, gender, etc.

It may have been intolerant from the baker's if the cake had not specific indication of gay intent (=neutral).

If asked to put 2 men characters, I can understand though, but the article just talks about making a cake for a couple. (If one of the partner only had come to ask for the cake, how could the baker's have known he was gay ?)

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

You can't force somebody to write "x is nice" if he thinks x is not nice, whatever notion it is.

NI one asked him to think it is not nice. They just want him to put bigotry aside for a bit and decorate a cake.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This case has me a bit conflicted, I must say.

On one hand, the baker absolutely should be free to believe whatever he wants. The issue comes when this affects other people. Are your beliefs more important than eliminating discrimination? Because that is what's going on - the baker is discriminating when he refuses his services because of sexuality.

Then again, as has been pointed out, can you force someone to lend their artistic ability to something they don't believe in? And just what does 'artistic ability' mean? Can a carpenter then also refuse his services on the same premise?

In my personal opinion, the discrimination is the biggest thing, and I think that trumps the religious freedom in this case. Maybe because I'm not from a very religious country. Of course, it could have been avoided if the couple just went somewhere else, but I actually think it's important to talk about dilemmas like this. It's a part of deciding what kind of society you want to be.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

The ruling is OK, most people against this ruling are misinterpreting what was being actually fought in court, and I think that is a big problem.

The baker never refused service, but refused to do a custom cake with the words they told them. The whole case was about the artistic freedom of the baker to refuse to bake a custom cake that is against what he believes. Even thou, I still think this guy was morally completely wrong, as a legal matter he is in the clear.

As far as I know, all anti-discrimination laws on the books are about refusing service, but the guy didn't refuse service, just refused to take a custom order.

Now, I'm 100% talking about the legality of the ruling, and as a legal matter it is ok, as a moral matter I think it sucks horribly.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The anti-Christian rhetoric indicates that the Left wants nothing short of the elimination of religious views from public.

I'd prefer to eliminate bigotry, to begin with. Then we can work on religion.

If the baker was Muslim, you can be darn sure the narrative would be very different.

At the end of the day, what's more important? The happiness of people in love or upholding writings from a few thousand years ago?

1 ( +1 / -0 )

If the baker was Muslim, you can be darn sure the narrative would be very different.

Ha! Haha. Too funny. In the US. "If he was a Muslim" he or she would be wanting to make cakes. That's the big diff between the US and Western Europe, everyone moves to the US to make money, religion comes second.

-4 ( +0 / -4 )

This is not about wording or images. Without equivocation the baker would not create his signature custom cake for the couple (maybe a birthday instead ??). The idea that a cake is a form of artistic speech was at the heart of the the case, and he says his art is heavily influenced by his Christian faith. 

From CNN:

In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig asked Phillips to bake a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which would be performed in another state. Phillips said he couldn't create the product they were looking for without violating his faith.

"The Bible says, 'In the beginning there was male and female,'" Phillips said.

He offered to make any other baked goods for the men. "At which point they both stormed out and left," he said.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

GOOD!

I'm a practicing Catholic. I'm not a baker, but if I were one, and someone I knew to be gay came in and ordered a birthday cake for his little niece, or a Mother's Day cake, or an anniversary cake for his parents' 50th, I'd gladly serve him. I would not deny service to him just because he's gay.

But, if he asks me to make a "gay wedding cake," that's different. In that case, he's asking me to take a direct part in the celebration of a behavior and a lifestyle that my religion says is sinful. And taking such a direct part in sinful behavior is in itself sinful.

People should not be forced to participate in EVENTS that run against their religious beliefs. And no, this is not discrimination. Discrimination applies to people, not to events.

For the same reason, a black restauranteur cannot legally discriminate against white people -- but has every right to refuse to open his restaurant as a venue for a KKK awards dinner. He has every right to decline to participate in such an event -- and it doesn't mean he's discriminating against anybody.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

... a lifestyle that my religion says is sinful. And taking such a direct part in sinful behavior is in itself sinful People should not be forced to participate in EVENTS that run against their religious beliefs. And no, this is not discrimination. Discrimination applies to people, not to events.

The Bible condones slavery, murder, wife-beating.

Do you go along with those, as a practicing member of your religion?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

This and similar cases are about more than religious freedom....

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s case is about artistic freedom, not discrimination

As the Justice Department brief explains, Mr. Phillips's custom wedding cakes are visual art in the context of an event that he and countless others from varying faith traditions consider sacred, and that implicates the First Amendment.

Creative professionals should be free to create art and other expression consistent with their beliefs — in this case, a belief about marriage that the Supreme Court said is "decent and honorable."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/masterpiece-cakeshops-case-is-about-artistic-freedom-not-discrimination/2017/09/25/1dda5518-9f0d-11e7-b2a7-bc70b6f98089_story.html?utm_term=.50db424dc7ac

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Is using one's religion to discriminate, fair?

No matter what religion, btw.

Surely such stories, it could be argued, are the most creative of all?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

By the way, the same-sex couple in question reportedly drove 120 miles just to have their cake baked by THIS baker.

In so doing, they drove through towns where there can be found dozens of secular-owned bakeries and, at least so I read, five or six Muslim-owned ones.

So, please. This was not about getting equal treatment. This was about making a point and trying to impose their "values" on a man who didn't share them.

And it cannot be emphasized enough that this man never refused service to gay people -- he'd served them many, many times. He just didn't want to take part in a homosexual EVENT.

An analogy: As a conservative Republican, I have quite a few liberal Democrat friends and acquaintances. They're all welcome into my home any time, and I am welcome in theirs.

But if they ask me to help out at any kind of event promoting Democrat candidates or politics, I would pass.

And I would respect their decision not to be involved in a Republican-promoting event. That's why I wouldn't even ask them -- out of respect for their views, even though I disagree with them.

See the difference? See the difference between (a) how to treat people vs. (b) whether or not to be involved in an event? It's really not a hard difference to sort out!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites