Bakery refused to make cake for gay couple
Colorado high court to hear case against Christian baker who refused to produce 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 notice 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 miss, after Phillips and his suburban Denver bakery refused to make a pink cake with cerulean 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 request was not a “set up” intended to file a lawsuit.
The Colorado Suprem
Baker&#;s refusal to bake male lover wedding cake
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, U.S. ___; S. Ct. ()
Summary
In a choice, the US Supreme Court overturned a decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) that a baker could not reject to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. Jack Phillips, owner of Colorado bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, had refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because same-sex marriage conflicted with his religious views. The couple filed a complaint with the Commission on the basis that the refusal violated declare anti-discrimination laws that prohibit businesses from discriminating against customers based on sexual orientation. The Commission ordered the baker to bake the cake. The baker appealed to the Court of Appeals which agreed with the Commission. The baker appealed to the US Supreme Court (Court), which overturned the Commission&#;s decision on the basis that the Commission had not acted with the required neutrality towards religion.
The Court did not take the opportunity to decide o
'Gay cake' row: What is the dispute about?
In October , the owners of the bakery missing their appeal against the verdict that their refusal to create a "gay cake" was discriminatory.
Appeal court judges said that, under law, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs, external.
Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious independence and free speech".
The firm then took the case to the Supreme Court and they won.
The UK's highest court ruled the bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
Then president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, ruled the bakers did not refuse to fulfil the order because of the customer's sexual orientation.
"They would hold refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation," she said.
"Their objection was to the message on the cake, not to
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 hold 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 male lover, the couple sued under Colorado’s longstanding nondiscrimination rule. The bakery claimed that the Constitution’s protections of free speech and independence of religion gave it the right to discriminate and to override the state’s civil rights regulation. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the bakery, and a declare appeals c