Supreme Court Reverses Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Scotusblog ^ | 6/4/2018 | Scotusblog

[CFW]

"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions."

link to decision

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

[mdmathis6]

I think I was saying the same thing but the SC did mention that the law was different in 2012 then it is now. The SC noted that the Colorado Human rights commission, several of the members were contemptuous of Phillips’ religious beliefs and on that basis was the Colorado rulings overturned. I understand the “discriminatory” part was not ruled on and was avoided.

[Jim W N]

Incorporation is not constitutionally the law of the land for two reasons.

1) Only those laws PURSUANT to the Constitution are the law of the land (U.S. Const., Art VI, Sec. 2). Incorporation is not supportable by the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. Leftist "incorporation" also violated the precedent of the Slaughterhouse Cases of 1873 with not a word of explanation.

2) the Supreme Court does NOT make national law. National law is reserved exclusively to Congress (Id., Art. I, Sec. 1). The scope and power of federal courts including SCOUTS is limited to the parties in individual cases and controversies (Id., Art. III, Sec. 2, Cl. 1).

Unconstitutional federal acts and decisions, which are acts and decisions of tyranny, should be rejected, ignored and voided by the states and other federal branches.

[Jim W N]

OK, well if you have a good-faith comment or question, fine. If not, I’m not interested.

[Eleutheria5]

Are they gonna go on strike?

[caww]

The Media headlines were as varied as a box of LGBT colors!
How about Baker ‘won’ Gays ‘lost’...

“U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who ‘spurned’ gay couple”.....

“U.S. Supreme Court backs Christian baker who ‘rebuffed’ gay couple”.....

“Supreme Court Ruling ‘Ducks Conflict’ Between Religious, Gay Rights”.....

“Supreme Court ‘backs’ Colorado baker’s gay wedding cake ‘snub’.......

“In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker”...

“Supreme Court’ backs’ baker who ‘refused’ to sell cake for gay wedding......

“Supreme Court to’Decide’ If Christian Businesses Must Serve Gay

“Icing on the Cake: Justice Dept. Backs Christian Baker”....

[Chode]

[circlecity]

Currently the USSC disagrees with you on that and the executive branch is currently enforceing the law consistent with that position. I don’t disagree with your position nor do I believe substantive due process is anything but a manufactured fiction, but until we can get 5 justices to agree....well, there it is.

[lastchance]

I did read it. You should read what I wrote. I did not write that the court found he was justified in his belief. They found given that same sex marriage was not legal at that time he was not being unreasonable in his belief that he was acting lawfully. The word justified never enters into it.

“Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful.”

Please note the court links the legal status of same sex marriage and whether Phillips decision that he was acting lawfully was reasonable. They gave him a partial pass based on the status of same sex marriage at that time -not based on his religious beliefs

The Court is making plain that there should not be an assumption that a Christian should not think they have reason to refuse to bake the cake, take the photo, do the flowers now that same sex marriage is legal.

They overturned the lower courts because the state failed to exercise its power within the proper limits by not being religiously neutral. Had they not said mean things about Christians and Phillip’s personal beliefs the lower court ruling would stand.

So you are essentially correct in “They overturned the lower court because Phillips was denied fair treatment because of his religious beliefs.” You are also partially correct that Phillip’s belief about whether he was acting within the law had nothing to do with the ruling. It does in that court has shown when it believes such an argument is applicable.

This was not a victory for religious freedom and it sure could have been. These so called civil right/ human right commissions now know how to compel Christians to bake that cake for that gay couple. They just can’t be big poo-poo heads (on record) to them.

[daniel1212]

Thanks for posting this. The below provides more info and argumentation .

This should have never made it this far. At the time of the refusal (k in 2012) to create a special work, a (typically over $500 ) cake for the specific purpose of celebration what the Bible nowhere sanctions but only condemns, the CO state constitution itself invalidated same-sex marriage and defined marriage as btwn male and female ( by amendment it specified marriage as being btwn opposite genders, thus agreeing with the Lord Jesus - (Matthew 19:4-6) . Thus the baker acted in accordance with both the Law of God and the highest law of the state, but who is prosecuted by a political commission.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission not only fined Jack, but ordered that if he made custom wedding cakes for heterosexual couples, he also had to do it for same-sex couples. Then the Commission—behaving like some communist dictatorship might—ordered Jack and his employees to go through a “re-education” program and provide quarterly compliance reports. - BreakPoint: Get the Facts about Jack (Phillips, that Is)

And wedding cakes have traditionally been used to convey a message. A dress maker refusing to sell a wedding dress to a man for his homosexual wedding when even the state did not recognize such as a legal marriage would also be justified.A somewhat proper analogy would be a black couple trying to contract with a Jewish baker to create a cake celebrating the anniversary of Luis Farrakan's Nation of Islam, and the baker refusing due to this being a perversion of the True God. Resulting in the baker being charged with discrimination against a minority based on race.

In July 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be legally wed in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with family and friends. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages. (In 2000, Gov. Bill Owens signed into law a bill banning same-sex marriage.[1] In 2006 by a margin of 56 percent to 44 percent voters had passed Colorado Amendment 43 which defined marriage in the state constitution as only between one man and one woman.[2] On October 7, the Colorado Supreme Court removed the legal obstacles preventing Colorado's county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, legalising same-sex marriage in the state.[3] Since 2014, the state has since allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) that marriage is a fundamental right that extends to same-sex couples.)[4]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado in 2012 to order a custom wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is Christian, declined, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any details of their wedding cake.[5]:2 The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings[5]:2 because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.[6][5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Colorado

Until 2013, a couple with an out-of-state civil union or same-sex marriage could not dissolve their relationship in Colorado, because C.R.S. 14-2-104(2) does not recognize a valid a same-sex marriage [vs civil unions] performed outside of Colorado. - Same-Sex Marriage & Civil Unions

Colorado's state constitutional ban on same-sex marriage was struck down in the state district court on July 9, 2014, and by the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado on July 23, 2014.

After being denied a marriage license, a lesbian couple filed a lawsuit on October 30, 2013 in the Colorado District Court....Colorado's attorney general announced he would defend the state's ban.[16]...On July 18, 2014, the Colorado Supreme Court ordered clerks in Adams and Denver counties stop issuing marriage licenses....On October 7 [2014], the Colorado Supreme Court removed the legal obstacles preventing Colorado's county clerks from issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, legalising same-sex marriage in the state.[3] - Same-sex marriage in Colorado - Wikipedia

Just as Jack would not create custom cakes for Halloween and divorce celebrations, as has been stated, he would not contract to create a cake for straight people who wanted one to celebrate "gay marriage" or that of btwn a man and his goat.

Creating and selling a cake is not just selling a cake when you know it is to be specifically used to do something unlawful. Celebrating an unlawful sexual union is sin, and knowingly creating and selling a special work specifically for that celebration facilitates/helps that sin by providing assistance, is sin. Even in US law, while dealing with weightier cases aligns with this. Accomplice Mens Rea and Actus Reus

• Was Masterpiece refusing to sell a cake anyone else could buy? No.
• Was Masterpiece singling out homosexuals in denying to contract for a cake celebrating homosexual marriage? No (straight couples would also be refused such/"discriminated" against, like as for Halloween and divorce celebrations).
• Was Masterpiece acting consistent with his convictions here? Yes.
• Was the refusal by Masterpiece to recognize "gay marriage" also that of the state at the time? Yes.
  
• Would Masterpiece be conveying recognition of "gay marriage" by contracting to provide this special and expensive cake? Yes.
• Was the state effectively requiring Masterpiece not to have or act upon compelling convictions in this regard by punishing the owners for not recognizing what the state itself historically did not? Yes.
  
• Would the state punish a black or Jewish or Muslim baker for not creating a special cake for a KKK celebration, though they have the right to freedom of speech? Unlikely.

[Jim W N]

the USSC disagrees with you on that

Of course they do. They are the perps regarding wresting the Constitution in the first place.

the executive branch is currently enforceing the law consistent with that position

Of course they are. Usually in league with Leftist tyranny, except for Trump. Trump's problem is is his advisors seem tone deaf to the actual Constitution (they got that way by going to law school where they make you deaf, dumb, and blind to the real Constitution and just parrot mostly unconstitutional USSC cases calling them "Constitutional Law" - what a racket).

No, it's up to the states to get the kahunas to stand up to federal tyranny and Trump needs to get smart maverick lawyers as advisors who actually understand the real Constitution.

This is the heart of the culture war we are in for the soul and future of America. Right here. God help us to win.

[Repeal 16-17]

I don’t disagree with your position nor do I believe substantive due process is anything but a manufactured fiction, but until we can get 5 justices to agree....well, there it is.

There is plenty of evidence that the authors of the Fourteenth Amendment intended its Privileges or Immunities Clause to apply the Bill of Rights to the States. They felt the BOR already did, despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Barron v. Baltimore (1833) (Bill of Rights applies only to the federal government). The Slaughterhouse Court refused to believe such a major change in the Constitution could have been intended. Later decisions sidestepped Slaughterhouse, starting in 1898, by using the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Read Justice Thomas's opinion concurring in the judgment in McDonald v. Chicago (2010) for a more detailed explanation.

[manc]

Correct me if i am wrong but this now helps the baker in Oregon, and other businesses which were told they had to ignore their religious beliefs?

[fwdude]

Correct me if i am wrong but this now helps the baker in Oregon, and other businesses which were told they had to ignore their religious beliefs?

Should, but probably won’t. This opinion was deliberately crafted so narrowly that it likely only affects Phillips. At least, other leftist courts will say so, especially in Oregon.

[Neoliberalnot]

Finally, a defeat for the queers and their incessant attacks on Christians. Happy rimming to all the butt boys.

[Neoliberalnot]

Unbelievable that a couple of open sex-offenders can attack a Christian and a string of blackrobed tyrants can allow it to go to the Supreme Court.

[Bob434]

[[You are free, within your license to sell what you want;]]

You say you are free to sell whatever you wish- meaning that if i don’t wish to sell that i don’t normally offer, I don’t have to- then go on to claim i can not refuse to provide something that is demanded of me that i do not normally offer because of religious beliefs? IF a store doesn’t wish to offer cakes celebrating homosexual marriages, then they should be able to do that every bit as much as the store that doesn’t wish to sell Satanic or pedophilia or bestiality material in their bookstore- You said it yourself that a store has the right to sell what it wishes, so in reality, no, my scenario wasn’t inapposite (and yes i had to look the word up lol)

The SC ruled today that the baker’s religious rights were violated- that it was he who was discriminate against because of a bias against religion

From what I understand Cases during the same period were brought before the courts where people demanded ‘anti-homosexual messages’ on their cakes- and the store refused to make them and the courts did nothing to prevent the store from making that decision

[Bob434]

and just to be clear- he was not refusing to sell to the couple- He was refusing to create a special work of art - (someone in another thread brought up the idea that what they were trying to do was akin to ‘forced labor’ ie ‘slavery’ working against one’s will to do something their conscience doesn’t allow them to do- this was a very arresting angle- but not sure it was appropriate- thought it might just be in regards to being forced to SPECIALLY CREATING a work of art against one’s will)

He offered to sell them standard cakes which were available in his bakery- he even offered to bake them cakes for other celebrations from what i understand- Just not for a wedding which violated his religious belief/conscience

[Bob434]

[[Should, but probably won’t. This opinion was deliberately crafted so narrowly that it likely only affects Phillips.]]

I think it might affect any business that was fined before the gay marriage ‘law’ went into effect, and any business that a town or county or whatever court rules in a biased manner against the religion- which is what happened in this case- The judges in the lower court were actually hostile towards the man’s religious beliefs- The SC basically reprimanded them for doing so- and has opened the door for the baker to take action against that lower court or township

[Bob434]

[[These so called civil right/ human right commissions now know how to compel Christians to bake that cake for that gay couple.]]

That remains to be seen- depending on how the SC handles cases like sweetcakes, and the elderly florist who refused to do floral arrangements for gay wedding- The left haven’t won yet- while today’s ruling wasn’t a huge success for religious liberty, it was a small step in the right direction- albeit a narrow one- The next cases will have to include the argument that people can not be coerced into working to specially create an artistic piece against their moral conscience - otherwise this would be akin to forced labor, and a violation of their first amendment right (right to free speech, and right not to be forced to say something you don’t wish to say- creating an artistic piece would be being forced to say something you don’t believe in- Art both speaks and is an expression of the artist’s voice so to speak- in otherwords, the artist forced to create a cake that celebrates homosexual marriage would be akin to the artist declaring they support that lifestyle- not sure how strong this argument will be- but it needs to be included in next cases)

The left are certainly going to try to keep violating a Christian businesse’s moral conscience, and like you say- will do so while refraining from being poopie heads about it- thus forcing more and more cases to the supreme court until the definitions are whittled down to more precise language- It’s still going to be a long slog

[AndyJackson]

Wring, Stop putting words in the Court’s mouth. They ruled that the commissions blatant bias against religion denied him the religious neutrality necessary for a fair hearing.