Supreme court case gay wedding cake
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 queer couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will own 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 regulation. The bakery claimed that the Constitution’s protections of free speech and autonomy of religion gave it the right to discriminate and to override the state’s civil rights commandment. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the bakery, and a express appeals c
You may recall the controversial "gay cake" case (Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd) that was heard by the Supreme Court in This is the case of the Christian bakery who refused to form a cake with the message “support gay marriage” for a gay customer. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has now unanimously decided that it would not reconsider the Supreme Court decision on this case.
In terse, the facts of the case are as follows. Mr Lee, a lgbtq+ man, ordered a cake from Ashers Bakers, to mark the end of Aniti-homophobic week. The bakery refused on the grounds that it was a Christian business. Mr Lee brought a claim in the Belfast County Court claiming that the refusal was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and religious creed or political opinion. The bakery argued that they had refused the command because they believed that providing the cake would have promoted the political campaign for same-sex marriage, which was against their Christian beliefs. They said they would have refused to supply a cake to a heterosexual or bise
In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to produce cake for male lover wedding
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court gave a amplify to advocates of religious freedom on Monday, ruling that a Colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, in a case that involved marriage equality and protection from discrimination.
But the notion was a slim one, applying to the specific data of this case only. It gave no hint as to how the court might determine future cases involving florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who acquire cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to provide gay and queer woman customers in the wake of the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision.
In the decision, the court said legal proceedings in Colorado had shown a hostility to the baker's religious views. Monday's ruling was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision.
Similar cases are now working their way through the lower courts.
"These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without und
Ashers 'gay cake' case: European court rules case inadmissible
However, the Rainbow Project, a Belfast-based gay rights campaign group, said the UK Supreme court decision had created legal uncertainty for LGBT people when accessing goods and services and Thursday's ECHR ruling had not resolved that uncertainty.
"The Rainbow Project affirms our fundamental doctrine in freedom of religion for all people, however this independence cannot be extrapolated into privately-owned business and used as a justification for discrimination," said its director John O'Doherty.
Fellow LGBT campaign group Stonewall also said Thursday's ECHR decision "leaves the door open for legal uncertainty across the UK and causes continued unease for our communities".
"Our thoughts are with Gareth Lee, who deserved more support from the European courts after seven years of working towards equality," said Stonewall's chief executive Nancy Kelley.
Mr Lee's lawyer, Ciaran Moynagh, said the ruling was a missed opportunity, and that Mr Lee was consider