Loading...
Loading...
Click here if you don’t see subscription options
Associated PressJune 04, 2018
Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake in his Masterpiece Cakeshop Sept. 21 in Lakewood, Colo. The Supreme Court was set to hear oral arguments Dec. 5 in the case of the baker who cited religious freedom in his refusal to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. (CNS photo/Rick Wilking, Reuters)

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is setting aside a Colorado court ruling against a baker who wouldn't make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

The justices' limited ruling Monday turns on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy says in his majority opinion that the issue "must await further elaboration." Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn't want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
JR Cosgrove
7 years 1 month ago

But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

All those people refusing to serve people wearing a pro Trump hat or T shirt will be under scrutiny.

George Obregon
7 years 1 month ago

Speaking from the chair of natural law, there was no moral or legal reasons for the two Justices, Ginsberg and Sodameyer, to vote against the majority on the Supreme Court.
/geo ex cathedra

Ken Chang
7 years 1 month ago

The SCOTUS does not understand the 'accommodation' law, sexual orientations and homosexuality, period.

Henry George
7 years 1 month ago

Why anyone would want to force someone to have anything to
do with their "Wedding" when they don't believe that they can
be married - baffles me.

That one can live out what one's conscience dictates in a non-violent
way is the reason we have the First Amendment. Why can't younger folks see the wisdom in the most fundamental of our amendments ?

George Obregon
7 years 1 month ago

Indeed.
If you're selling services or custom goods where you would need to participate in activities you find objectionable on the grounds of Christian conscience, it is perfectly moral and legal to decline the job... (Of course you're risking all sorts of bad press, but did Christ ever preach that Christian conscience is popular?)

The latest from america

Pope Leo XIV has appointed the French archbishop of Chambéry, Thibault Verny, as the new president of the Pontifical Commission for the Protection of Minors. He succeeds Cardinal Seán O’Malley, 81, the emeritus archbishop of Boston.
Gerard O’ConnellJuly 05, 2025
U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., speaks with other members of the House July 3, 2025, on Capitol Hill in Washington after final passage of U.S. President Donald Trump's sweeping spending and tax bill. (OSV News photo/Jonathan Ernst, Reuters)
“Deep cuts” to SNAP and Medicaid will “inflict real suffering on these families…. SNAP and Medicaid are not luxuries, they are lifelines for millions of children across our country.”
Kevin ClarkeJuly 03, 2025
It was one of the first times Leo has spoken unscripted at length in public, responding to questions posed to him by the children.
The Vatican has named the judges that will preside over the trial of disgraced Father Marko Rupnik.