Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Refused to Sell Wedding Cake to Gay Couple

The controversial case of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple has reached its end: on Monday, the Supreme Court sided with the Colorado baker.

The decision dismissed any ruling against the baker, but did not reach a conclusion on the topic of whether a business can refuse to serve people from the LGBTQ+ community. Justice Anthony Kennedy claimed that the previous set of actions taken against the baker, Jack Phillips, had been done under an Anti-religious bias by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Kennedy released a statement with the jury’s majority’s decision, where he said that “The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.” He highlighted that, while listening to the defense’s arguments, the commissioner seemed “neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.”  Other attorneys have stated that the Commission should have shown tolerance towards both the people who filed the claim and the baker, which they didn’t do in the case of the latter.

In the statement, Kennedy wrote:

The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable law. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach.”

This encounter dates back to 2012, when a gay couple in Denver went to a Masterpiece Cakeshop store and asked for a customized wedding cake. Jack Philips refused to create a cake for them, arguing that it would violate his freedom of speech and freedom to hold his own religious beliefs. He further explained his decision last year, by saying: “It’s not about turning away these customers, it’s about doing a cake for an event — a religious sacred event — that conflicts with my conscience.” Philips has stated in interviews that he is “ecstatic” after the ruling.

All throughout the case, the Trump administration has constantly supported the baker, especially Attorney General Jeff Sessions. The support that this case’s defense has received has raised major concerns from activist groups since it would indicate a possible government roll-back on protecting groups that have historically been discriminated. They believe that the government’s approach to the case could undermine laws that protect minorities.

The couple presented a formal public complaint towards Philips, stating that the case symbolized “the rights of gay people to receive equal service in business … about basic access to public life.”  After Monday’s ruling, the couple stated: “Today’s decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue…We brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation of being told ‘we don’t serve your kind here’ that we faced, and we will continue fighting until no one does.”

Liberal justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor countered the rest, siding with the couple. Ginsburg stated: “I see no reason why the comments of one or two Commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips’ refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins.”

This case has brought attention to a debate regarding the conflict between LGBT+ rights and religious freedom and identity.

Featured Image via: Flickr/Ted Eytan