U.S. top court's cake case pits gay rights versus Christian faith

[webfact]

U.S. top court's cake case pits gay rights versus Christian faith

By Lawrence Hurley

 

FILE PHOTO: Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake in his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado U.S. September 21, 2017. Picture taken September 21, 2017. REUTERS/Rick Wilking/File Photo

 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - When conservative Christian baker Jack Phillips in 2012 politely but firmly told Colorado gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig he would not make them a cake to celebrate their wedding, it triggered a chain of events that will climax on Tuesday in highly anticipated U.S. Supreme Court arguments.

 

Phillips contends the U.S. Constitution's free speech guarantees protect him from making a cake that would violate his religious beliefs against gay marriage. To Mullins and Craig, the baker's refusal represented a simple case of unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation.

 

In one of the biggest cases of the conservative-majority court's nine-month term, the justices -- just two years after legalizing gay marriage -- must decide whether Phillips' action was constitutionally protected and he can avoid punishment for violating Colorado anti-discrimination law.

 

A ruling favoring Phillips could open the door for certain businesses to spurn gay couples by invoking religious beliefs, as some wedding photographers, florists and others already have done.

 

The brief encounter at Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburb of Lakewood left Mullins and Craig distraught. They filed a successful complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the first step in the five-year-old legal battle that the nine justices will resolve in a ruling due by the end of June.

 

The baker's lawyers argue that because his cakes are artistic endeavors, guarantees of freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment protect Phillips from being forced to make baked creations that express a message he opposes on religious grounds.

 

Mullins and Craig were planning their wedding in Massachusetts that September and wanted the cake for a reception to be held in Colorado, where gay marriage was not yet legal. Craig's mother witnessed the tense exchange, which he said made it harder for him to bear.

 

"I ended up starting to cry because I felt really bad and overwhelmed that my mom had to see me go through this. I guess it was the feeling of helplessness," Craig said in an interview.

 

Phillips said he offered to sell the couple other products in his store but was adamant that his religious beliefs compelled him to draw a line when it comes to certain issues.

 

'I SERVE EVERYBODY'

 

"Everybody that comes in my store is welcome in my store," Phillips said in an interview. "I serve everybody that comes in and I create products for many events, just not all events."

 

Based on his Christian beliefs, Phillips said he also refuses to make Halloween cakes as well as baked goods "that denigrate other people."

 

The civil rights commission found that Phillips violated state anti-discrimination law that bars businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation. It ordered him to take remedial measures including staff training and the filing of quarterly compliance reports.

 

Phillips said he found the penalty "deeply offensive" in part because until recently his mother was one of his employees.

"I have to tell my mom, 'Everything you have taught me doesn't count here,'" Phillips said.

 

In 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals also ruled against Phillips. The Colorado Supreme Court subsequently denied his appeal, prompting Phillips to take the case to the top U.S. court.

 

Evangelical Christians are an important part of President Donald Trump's political base, and his administration filed a brief in support of Phillips.

 

The case puts 81-year-old Justice Anthony Kennedy, one of the court's five conservative, in the spotlight. Kennedy, a potential deciding vote in a 5-4 ruling, has joined the court's liberals in major decisions on issues such as abortion and gay rights. He authored the court's landmark 2015 decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide. But Kennedy is also a strong proponent of free speech rights.

 

CULTURAL FLASHPOINT

 

The case has become a cultural flashpoint in the United States that underscores the tensions between gay rights proponents and conservative Christians.

 

National advocacy groups have jumped in on both sides. Mullins and Craig are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union. Phillips is represented by the conservative Christian legal group Alliance Defending Freedom.

 

Similar cases are being litigated in other U.S. courts, and other countries also are confronting the issue. In April, Britain's Supreme Court will consider whether a Christian-run bakery in Northern Ireland can refuse to make a cake backing gay rights.

 

In this case and others involving such issues as abortion, union dues and campaign funding, conservatives have relied on free speech arguments before the Supreme Court, but the issue of religious liberty still looms large.

 

"This is about will the U.S. Supreme Court decide that the fundamental freedoms and liberties that Americans have taken for granted for 200 years are still valid," said Phillips' lawyer, Kristen Waggoner.

 

The ACLU said a ruling favoring Phillips could lead to other efforts to skirt anti-discrimination laws.

 

"They are asking for a constitutional right to discriminate," ACLU lawyer Louise Melling said. "This is not a case about a cake. It is a case about a very radical proposition."

 

Mullins and Craig did get to celebrate their marriage with a cake made by another bakery. Phillips will once again encounter them on Tuesday, this time in the grand marble halls of the Supreme Court.

 

(Reporting by Lawrence Hurley; Editing by Will Dunham)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2017-12-01

[attrayant]

Somebody needs to open up another bakery next door that doesn't discriminate.

[nikmar]

His right to refuse for whatever reason. No biggie....go to another cake shop. 

[Jingthing]

His right to refuse for whatever reason. No biggie....go to another cake shop. [emoji2]

Google Jim Crow laws. Not always so trivial or harmless. The implications are major.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[ronrat]

Big deal. If social media got hold of it he would have been broke in 12 months. Just don't buy a thing off hi, Plenty of other cake makers who are happy to make about 500 percent profit on a wedding cake. A bit of grandstanding here from both sides.

Edited December 2, 2017 by ronrat

[Krataiboy]

22 minutes ago, ronrat said:

Big deal. If social media got hold of it he would have been broke in 12 months. Just don't buy a thing off hi, Plenty of other cake makers who are happy to make about 500 percent profit on a wedding cake. A bit of grandstanding here from both sides.

I'm not sure you're right. A lot of people think the stand this baker made was justified and that an important principle is at stake here. Why should the rights of one minority group trump those of another? 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Krataiboy

[Dagnabbit]

You have to wonder how much these gay couples have to shop around before finding a shop that refuses them.

If they had some class, they'd gave respected the shop owners religious views and moved on. That wouldn't have put them in the spitlight though, would it?

Sent from my SM-A720F using Tapatalk

[meinphuket]

I am no religious freak, but I do believe we should be free to sell, or  not, to whomever we feel like. I certainly do in my own business.

[ilostmypassword]

Just now, meinphuket said:

I am no religious freak, but I do believe we should be free to sell, or  not, to whomever we feel like. I certainly do in my own business.

As has been pointed out above, that view would have allowed for Jim Crow laws in the Southern USA to continue.

[ilostmypassword]

I think the question boils down to free vs. coerced expression. So it's one thing if a baker sells donuts but refuses to sell them to gay couples or black people or nazis.   But it's quite another thing to force someone to specifically manufacture an item  that clashes with his or her views.

If a nazi asked a Jewish baker to make a swastika shaped wedding cake. should that baker be compelled to do so? But if that same Nazi wanted to order a standard loaf of rye bread, should the owner have the right to deny him that?

[Credo]

44 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

I think the question boils down to free vs. coerced expression. So it's one thing if a baker sells donuts but refuses to sell them to gay couples or black people or nazis.   But it's quite another thing to force someone to specifically manufacture an item  that clashes with his or her views.

If a nazi asked a Jewish baker to make a swastika shaped wedding cake. should that baker be compelled to do so? But if that same Nazi wanted to order a standard loaf of rye bread, should the owner have the right to deny him that?

You almost got it, but not quite.   Unless they were asking for a specific shape on the cake, such as a penis, the discrimination is against the people, in this case gay people.   

 

If a German walks in and asks for a cake in the shape of a swastika and the baker doesn't do swastika's then it's about what he does and doesn't make.   His problem might become relevant if he made swastika cakes for people who weren't Jewish.   

 

If you sell wedding cakes, then you should sell to any group of people who wants and can pay for it.   You can't decide to discriminate because they are Gay, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim....or....horror of horror's, Atheists.

 

Having the right to refuse service to people needs to have some basis in law, such as 'no shoes, no shirt, no service', which is a standard implemented by health departments.   

 

 

[ilostmypassword]

1 hour ago, Credo said:

You almost got it, but not quite.   Unless they were asking for a specific shape on the cake, such as a penis, the discrimination is against the people, in this case gay people.   

 

If a German walks in and asks for a cake in the shape of a swastika and the baker doesn't do swastika's then it's about what he does and doesn't make.   His problem might become relevant if he made swastika cakes for people who weren't Jewish.   

 

If you sell wedding cakes, then you should sell to any group of people who wants and can pay for it.   You can't decide to discriminate because they are Gay, Catholic, Jewish or Muslim....or....horror of horror's, Atheists.

Having the right to refuse service to people needs to have some basis in law, such as 'no shoes, no shirt, no service', which is a standard implemented by health departments.   

 

 

Kind of a strange example. Do straight couples ever ask for penis-vagina cakes? And if so, would a refusal to make one violate the straight couple's civil rights?

Anyway, was it just a plain vanilla wedding cake? Or did they want to be decorated with 2 bridesgrooms? If the former, I would say the owners don't have a case. If the latter, I'd say they do.

 

[Emster23]

If the SC sides with "religious freedom bigotry side" regarding who you serve or don't, what is to prevent someone from starting a religion that has "belief" to not serve Blacks, Mexicans, red heads, Christians, whatever?

[Credo]

16 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

Kind of a strange example. Do straight couples ever ask for penis-vagina cakes? And if so, would a refusal to make one violate the straight couple's civil rights?

Anyway, was it just a plain vanilla wedding cake? Or did they want to be decorated with 2 bridesgrooms? If the former, I would say the owners don't have a case. If the latter, I'd say they do.

 

It's not a strange example.   They are refusing service because of directives from a government agency.   

 

It wold not be discrimination if the baker does not make cakes in the shape of vaginas or penises.   If he does, then he would be obligated not to discriminate in who he sells to, unless it violates some other law; such as selling such a cake to a minor.   

[IAMHERE]

I thought this case was about the baker using his artistic ability to design a gay cake for these two lovers; he would have gladly sold them a cake of their own design or a cake on display. These two gays are upset the baker couldn't or wouldn't use his abilities to serve them their desires. Not sure you can tell a person how to think up something unique for you. 

One of the mothers worked there and wanted to challenge her boss on his Christian beliefs on behalf of all gays, not just her gay son.

[MyFriend You]

8 hours ago, ronrat said:

Big deal. If social media got hold of it he would have been broke in 12 months. Just don't buy a thing off hi, Plenty of other cake makers who are happy to make about 500 percent profit on a wedding cake. A bit of grandstanding here from both sides.

Aaaah!!!  But you forget, this is America and no country allows its people to sue another like America.  A Bar I worked in got sued because the sidewalk in front of it was cracked and an old lady tripped and broke her leg - it's the City sidewalk, but it's in front of the bar, court awarded her $400,000  USD against the Bar's Insurance Company.

[stevenl]

6 hours ago, ilostmypassword said:

Kind of a strange example. Do straight couples ever ask for penis-vagina cakes? And if so, would a refusal to make one violate the straight couple's civil rights?

Anyway, was it just a plain vanilla wedding cake? Or did they want to be decorated with 2 bridesgrooms? If the former, I would say the owners don't have a case. If the latter, I'd say they do.

 

But based on freedom of speech due to it being an artistic expression?

[nausea]

7 hours ago, IAMHERE said:

One of the mothers worked there and wanted to challenge her boss on his Christian beliefs on behalf of all gays, not just her gay son.

I did get the impression it might be personal.

[new2here]

Wow, I like this case... only because I can see for myself (through my own optics of personal right-wrong values) how both sides have good merit

I DO support a the businesses right not to offer services that violate their religious beliefs.. I think that's a very important value to maintain.

I ALSO believe strongly that discrimination on any form isn't right and is something that should be rooted out.

So... I just don't know how I feel about this issue as I can make a good case for both sides..


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[Credo]

1 hour ago, new2here said:

Wow, I like this case... only because I can see for myself (through my own optics of personal right-wrong values) how both sides have good merit

I DO support a the businesses right not to offer services that violate their religious beliefs.. I think that's a very important value to maintain.

I ALSO believe strongly that discrimination on any form isn't right and is something that should be rooted out.

So... I just don't know how I feel about this issue as I can make a good case for both sides..


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

I have nothing wrong with people adhering to their religious beliefs, but I don't think in a case like this that belief extends to the making or not making of a cake.   What they are doing is making a political statement.

 

When you open a business, you are required to get a business license and that license means you have met certain criteria.  A part of that is a contract between the public and the provider.   Someone wants a cake, they should be provided with the cake, regardless of whether someone likes them or not.   

 

It's discrimination against a group of people.   That's not permitted and should not be permitted.   If a KKK member opens a coffee shop, do you think he can refuse to serve Blacks?

 

The baker does not have to attend the ceremony, he is not a witness and is not participating in anything other than making a cake.  

 

Edited December 2, 2017 by Credo

[Krataiboy]

23 hours ago, Emster23 said:

If the SC sides with "religious freedom bigotry side" regarding who you serve or don't, what is to prevent someone from starting a religion that has "belief" to not serve Blacks, Mexicans, red heads, Christians, whatever?

That's it!  The gay couple should drop the court case, start a new religion that bars them from serving other religious folk - and open their own cake shop. Sorted.

[ilostmypassword]

10 hours ago, Credo said:

I have nothing wrong with people adhering to their religious beliefs, but I don't think in a case like this that belief extends to the making or not making of a cake.   What they are doing is making a political statement.

 

When you open a business, you are required to get a business license and that license means you have met certain criteria.  A part of that is a contract between the public and the provider.   Someone wants a cake, they should be provided with the cake, regardless of whether someone likes them or not.   

 

It's discrimination against a group of people.   That's not permitted and should not be permitted.   If a KKK member opens a coffee shop, do you think he can refuse to serve Blacks?

 

The baker does not have to attend the ceremony, he is not a witness and is not participating in anything other than making a cake.  

 

It depends. If they ordered a cake that bears some special message being seen as an endorsement of homosexuality, that could be seen as a violation of the right of free speech. But if it were a wedding cake that carried no such message, then, no, the cake shop shouldn't have the right to refuse service

[FreddieRoyle]

3 minutes ago, ilostmypassword said:

It depends. If they ordered a cake that bears some special message being seen as an endorsement of homosexuality, that could be seen as a violation of the right of free speech. But if it were a wedding cake that carried no such message, then, no, the cake shop shouldn't have the right to refuse service

well let's just wait and see. I believe this "victory" for the liberals will soon turn very sour when a server refuses to serve alcohol or pork products on religious grounds and trouble/double standards break out. This happens regularly for servers to refuse to serve non-halal items, it happened rather famously to Tommy Robinson. The more I think about this, the more it seems an own goal. We will see....

[ilostmypassword]

3 minutes ago, FreddieRoyle said:

well let's just wait and see. I believe this "victory" for the liberals will soon turn very sour when a server refuses to serve alcohol or pork products on religious grounds and trouble/double standards break out. This happens regularly for servers to refuse to serve non-halal items, it happened rather famously to Tommy Robinson. The more I think about this, the more it seems an own goal. We will see....

The issue in the US case, at least as presented in the article, is not clear. but it seems to be a question of first amendment rights vs. civil rights.

For those who might not follow such things, Tommy Robinson is a well know bigot from the UK.  I found nothing in the news about a server refusing to serve non-halal items. The only thing I found was this.  And given that this employee was suspended, I assume that a server who works at a restaurant that serves non-halal food but refuses to serve it, would not legally have a case to contest his firing or suspension.

Selfridges assistant suspended for refusing to serve EDL leader's friend

A Selfridges shop assistant is facing possible dismissal after refusing to serve a man who was buying clothes with the leader of the English Defence League, Tommy Robinson.

The menswear assistant, who has not been named, angered Robinson after he declined to help his friend in the luxury London department store on Monday.

Robinson, a convicted criminal who leads anti-Islam protests that have often turned violent and have been marked by racist chanting, said the assistant asked his friend if he was with the EDL leader and then said "f""k off, I am not serving you".

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/sep/17/selfridges-worked-facing-dismissal-refusal-edl

[FreddieRoyle]

Well here is a link supporting people refusing to serve products to customers on ethical/religious grounds.

 

"Marks & Spencer says its Muslim staff do not have to sell pork or alcohol to customers"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10532782/Muslim-staff-at-Marks-and-Spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

[ilostmypassword]

1 minute ago, FreddieRoyle said:

Well here is a link supporting people refusing to serve products to customers on ethical/religious grounds.

 

"Marks & Spencer says its Muslim staff do not have to sell pork or alcohol to customers"

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/10532782/Muslim-staff-at-Marks-and-Spencer-can-refuse-to-sell-alcohol-and-pork.html

But that's the employer's right. And the decision isn't based on a customer's beliefs but on the employees'. They're refusing to serve it to everybody, not just certain people. Or do you think that pork has civil rights and therefore grounds for protesting against being discriminated against?

[thaihome]

Here is an interesting take on the case. As it is a limited liability corporation (LLC)

that is actually suing this impacts corporate law and the requirment for corporations to comply with civil rights laws and other  regulations under the excuse of "freedom of speech ".

Remember the cake shop is asserting a free-speech right—meaning that any corporation of any size can claim a similar exemption for any reason at all. If obeying civil-rights laws in the provision of a cake constitutes “compelled speech,” then conceptually any corporation can claim similar exemptions from serving any unpopular group they claim to dislike

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/11/whats-new-about-sessions-defense-of-discrimination/547043/

 

It will be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on this one. It likely is going to come down to what Kennedy thinks and there is no telling on this one has he has taken positions in the past on both sides of this argument. He certainly enjoys his awing vote position and I suspect with the current right wing wave he will vote on the side of the bakery and will sit back and bask in the resulting chaos. 

 

TH 

[ilostmypassword]

So much for the freedom of speech defense:

"Mr. Phillips might have a legitimate right to refuse to make a cake carrying certain words or images he finds offensive, just as an African-American baker could refuse to decorate something with a white-power symbol. But that is not this case. He refused service to the gay couple before they even talked about any design."

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/02/opinion/even-the-bernini-of-buttercream-has-to-serve-gay-couples.html

[mrwebb8825]

On 12/2/2017 at 4:02 PM, IAMHERE said:

One of the mothers worked there and wanted to challenge her boss on his Christian beliefs on behalf of all gays, not just her gay son.

 

On 12/1/2017 at 2:39 PM, webfact said:

Phillips said he found the penalty "deeply offensive" in part because until recently his mother was one of his employees.

you need to reread the story

 

On 12/1/2017 at 2:39 PM, webfact said:

Craig's mother witnessed the tense exchange, which he said made it harder for him to bear.

 

[Jingthing]

A clever tactic by the religious right to attack gay civil rights. They've been open about their plans for years now. 

It's easy to get suckered into seeing their POV as reasonable. That's why this tactic is so INSIDIOUS. 

 

Quote

How Clueless Straight White Guys Excuse Religious Homophobia

 

 

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/12/08/clueless_straight_white_guys_excuse_religious_homophobia.html