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
5 years 3 months 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
5 years 3 months 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
5 years 3 months ago

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

Henry George
5 years 3 months 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
5 years 3 months 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

A Reflection for Friday of the Twenty-fourth Week in Ordinary Time, by Kerry Weber
Kerry WeberSeptember 22, 2023
“The exploitation of migrants is criminal” as is their detention, Pope Francis told reporters in August, and “I am going to Marseille for this.”
How Catholic Charities’ mission and Catholic identity is informing their work on the ground.
JesuiticalSeptember 22, 2023