Baker and gay couple
Colorado high court to listen case against Christian baker who refused to create trans-themed cake
On the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court victory this summer for a graphic artist who didn’t want to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, Colorado’s highest court said Tuesday it will now hear the case of a Christian baker who refused to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.
The announcement by the Colorado Supreme Court is the latest development in the yearslong legal saga involving Jack Phillips and LGBTQ rights.
Phillips won a partial victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in after refusing to make a homosexual couple’s wedding cake.
He was later sued by Autumn Scardina, a transgender gal, after Phillips and his suburban Denver bakery refused to make a pink cake with blue frosting for her birthday and to celebrate her gender transition.
Scardina, an attorney, said she brought the lawsuit to “challenge the veracity” of Phillips’ statements that he would serve LGBTQ customers. Her attorney said her cake order was not a “set up” intended to file a lawsuit.
The Colorado Supreme Court didn’t clarify how or why it made the determination to hear the case. It was announced in a
In summary
A California appeals court rules a baker can’t refuse to sell a generic cake to a lesbian couple. It’s part of a series of cases shaping the debate over free speech and anti-discrimination laws.
A Kern County baker violated California rule when she refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple for their wedding, a mention appeals court ruled this week in a suit brought by the state’s Civil Rights Department.
If the scenario sounds familiar, that’s because it’s central to a series of cases that have for years been shaping the nation’s legal debate over free speech and anti-discrimination laws.
In , the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado ruling that a baker had violated that state’s nondiscrimination law when he refused to bake a cake for a queer couple’s wedding. The decree was based on the court’s finding that the Colorado civil rights commission handling the case had been prejudiced against the baker’s religious beliefs.
The court in ruled, also in a Colorado case, in favor of a website designer who opposed lgbtq+ marriage on religious grounds and who was terrified the same state statutes could in theory press her to design a wedding website fo
In Masterpiece, the Bakery Wins the Battle but Loses the War
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a bakery that had refused to sell a wedding cake to a lgbtq+ couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will include little to no applicability to future cases. The opinion is full of reaffirmations of our country’s longstanding rule that states can bar businesses that are open to the public from turning customers away because of who they are.
The case involves Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple who went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver in search of a cake for their wedding reception. When the bakery refused to sell Dave and Charlie a wedding cake because they’re homosexual, the couple sued under Colorado’s longstanding nondiscrimination commandment. The bakery claimed that the Constitution’s protections of free speech and release of religion gave it the right to discriminate and to override the state’s civil rights statute. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the bakery, and a mention appeals court upheld its decision.
In reversing the drop court’s ruling, the Supreme Court focused on how t
Judge orders Colorado baker to serve gay couples
Una_Persson
How would the restaurant owner know they were gay?
I’ve personally been evicted from a club/restaurant because I held hands, danced with, and kissed my wife at dinner. No more or less than any other couple was doing so. We were even told it was because we were two women.
adaher
I am just thinking that some bigoted restaurant owner may use this as an excuse to discriminate against a homosexual couple wishing to nibble in his restaurant.
Dunno if it would hold up, but I am of the opinion that the current subject, the baker, was in the erroneous. If SCOTUS sides with the baker, I don’t know where the right to discriminate will end.
The right to discriminate would only apply to “sincerely held religious beliefs”. The number of people willing to turn down cash is exeedingly small.
Also, SCOTUS doesn’t have to issue a ruling that broad anyway. They can distinguish between expressive conduct, universal accomodations, and personal services. Expressive conduct and personal services would allow for conscience opt outs, while public accomodations would not.
Serious question: Is a sapphic bar a public
.