Baker who refused to make same-sex wedding cake wins U.S. Supreme Court case

The U.S. Supreme Court onMonday handed a victory on narrow grounds to a Christian baker from Colorado who refused for religious reasons to make awedding cake for a gay couple, stopping short of setting a majorprecedent allowing people to claim exemptions fromanti-discrimination laws based on religious beliefs.

The justices, in a 7-2 decision, said the Colorado CivilRights Commission showed an impermissible hostility toward religion when it found that baker Jack Phillips violated thestate's anti-discrimination law by rebuffing gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012.

The state law bars businessesfrom refusing service based on race, sex, marital status orsexual orientation.

The ruling concluded that the commission violated Phillips'religious rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment.

But the court did not issue a definitive ruling on thecircumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views.

Thedecision also did not address several of the claims raised inthe case, including whether baking a cake is a kind of expressive act protected by the constitution's guarantee of freespeech.

'Further elaboration'needed

Two of the court's four liberals, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the five conservative justices in the ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy.

"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the FirstAmendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner thatis neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote, referring to theFirst Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

But Kennedy also stressed the importance of gay rights whilenoting that litigation on similar issues is likely to continue in lower courts.

"Our society has come to the recognition that gay personsand gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth," he wrote.

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances mustawait further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance,without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, andwithout subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seekgoods and services in an open market," Kennedy said.

Of the 50 states, 21,including Colorado, haveanti-discrimination laws protectingpeople in the LGBTQcommunity.

Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack's religious beliefs about marriage.- Kristen Waggoner, Alliance Defending Freedom

The closely watched case before the Supreme Court, which in2015 legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, pitted gay rightsagainst religious liberty. President Donald Trump'sadministration intervened in the case in support of Phillips.

Mullins and Craig were planning their wedding inMassachusetts in 2012 and wanted the cake for a reception in Colorado, where gay marriage was not yet legal. During a briefencounter at Phillips's Masterpiece Cakeshop in the Denver suburbof Lakewood, the baker politely but firmly refused, leaving thecouple distraught.

They filed a successful complaint with the state commission,the first step in the six-yearlegal battle. State courts sided with the couple, prompting Phillips to appeal to the U.S. top court. Phillips has said a backlash against his businesshas left him struggling to keep the shop afloat.

The outcome of the case hinged on the actions of theColorado commission. In one exchange at a 2014 hearing cited byKennedy, former commissioner Diann Rice said that "freedom ofreligion, and religion, has been used to justify all kinds ofdiscrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery,whether it be the Holocaust."

'Openly antagonistic'

Kennedy also noted that the commission had ruled theopposite way in three other cases brought against bakers in which the business owners had refused to bake cakes containingmessages they disagreed with that demeaned gay people orsame-sex marriage.

The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case, but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people.- Louise Melling,ACLU

"Government hostility toward people of faith has no place inour society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistictoward Jack's religious beliefs about marriage. The court wasright to condemn that," said Kristen Waggoner, a lawyer atconservative Christian group Alliance Defending Freedom, whichrepresents Phillips.

She added that the decision "makes clear that the governmentmust respect Jack's beliefs about marriage."

ACLU lawyer Louise Melling, who represents Mullins andCraig, said that high court had made it clear that businesses
open to the public must serve everyone.

"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision basedon concerns unique to the case, but reaffirmed its longstandingrule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in themarketplace, including against LGBT people," Melling added.

Faith ordiscrimination

Phillips' lawyers argued that his cakes are an art form a"temporary sculpture" and being forced to create one tocommemorate a gay wedding would violate his rights under theU.S. Constitution to freedom of speech and expression and freeexercise of religion.

Mullins and Craig, represented by the American CivilLiberties Union, said Phillips was using his Christian faith as pretext for unlawful discrimination based on sexual orientation.The ACLU said the baker was advocating for a "licence todiscriminate" that could have broad repercussions beyond gayrights.

The case became a cultural flashpoint in the United States,underscoring the tensions between gay rights proponents andconservative Christians.

The litigation, along with similar cases around the country, is part of a conservative Christian backlash to the Supreme Court's gay marriage ruling. Phillips and others like him who believe that gay marriage is not consistent with their Christian beliefs, have said they should not be required to effectively endorse the practice.

Gay rights advocates said the case is just one part of a bigger struggle seeking greater legal protections for gay, bisexual and transgender people, including in the workplace, even as they fight efforts by conservatives to undermine gains secured in recent years.