The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 in favor of Jack Phillips, the antigay baker from Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, and American bigots couldn’t be happier.
Outside the Supreme Court building, antigay Christians/religious freedom fighters cheered cries of victory and praised God as the verdict was announced.
The hate-fueled jubilation continued on Twitter:
The Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 in favor of the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay couple.
Good – 1
Evil- 0#SCOTUS— TRUTH?? (@thinkbible1611) June 4, 2018
It's great to see the gay couple in the case lose. Their behavior was truly vindictive, vile, and despicable. They are the bullies here and they deserve to lose and be embarrassed.
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) June 4, 2018
We thank God for answered prayer! Today the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony. This is a huge win for religious freedom!https://t.co/jXX6pd6xaQ
— Franklin Graham (@Franklin_Graham) June 4, 2018
Don't forget allegedly the gay couple in the #MasterpieceCakeshop lawsuit shopped around until they could find a cake baker that would refuse service.
This is about attacking religion! Not gay rights!
— Millie Weaver (@Millie__Weaver) June 4, 2018
Christian baker wins 7-2 at Supreme Court. Take that, fascists.
— Austin Ruse (@austinruse) June 4, 2018
A Supreme Court victory for Religious Freedom! https://t.co/ioticHKTC2
— BenhamBrothers (@BenhamBrothers) June 4, 2018
FINALLY…..RETURN TO FREEDOM OF RELIGION EXPRESSION!#Supeme Court SIDES WITH #ChristianBaker in same-sex wedding cake case – Washington Times https://t.co/2CYFo4NJ21
— Dr. Lynn J Anderson (@andersonDrLJA) June 4, 2018
“Today’s decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue,” said Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, the two men denied a cake by Phillips. “We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are.”
How about we take this to the next level?
Our newsletter is like a refreshing cocktail (or mocktail) of LGBTQ+ entertainment and pop culture, served up with a side of eye-candy.
Related: Supreme Court rules in favor of anti-gay baker in wedding cake case
DavidThomasCurran
And so it begins. People should be afraid (all people – not just LGBTI).
Bob LaBlah
Hopefully some where out there in one of America’s big cities there are enterprising young or older gay men and women who see a golden opportunity to open a bakery. SF, WeHo, NYC, Chicago, Atlanta, Dallas, Washington, DC…….the list goes on. The gay populations of those cities listed are large enough to support a gay-owned bakery. You see just where complaining about what we ourselves should have but don’t have (our own bakery) got us (a slap across the face and a hard dose of reality).
Brian
I’m sure there are plenty of gay owned bakeries in the United States. Why wouldn’t there be?
Brian
So does this mean gay bars can start throwing out bachelorette parties? If it does, totally worth it.
Mack
Perhaps we should start a movement that unless the business is “all inclusive” and have it posted, LGBTQ will not patronize it. Start hitting these asswipes where it hurts. I know if someone refuses service to me because I’m gay, I’ll put them out of business-one way or the other.
Chrisk
Yelp would be a good place to start. They want the freedom to discriminate but they don’t want to do it out in the open.
WindsorOntario
My question/comment here is for those in the US with some knowledge about this issue…it appears that the ultra-right is regaining steam in this culture war they seem to want in the US. Do you think they are going to eventually try to repeal gay marriage legality? Is there any chance or loophole that could actually make that happen?
It looks to me that Trump and his supporters are out to dismantle every single thing that Obama did for the US. I really hope they don’t go after gay marriage next, but after abortion it looks like getting rid of gay marriage is on the top of their list.
Roan
It’s settled law at the SCOTUS level, and it’s very rare the SCOTUS reverses itself. So they probably won’t succeed in reversing the Obergfell ruling. What they will do is exactly what you are seeing at the state level with Roe v Wade. They will make it exceedingly difficult in some states. Laws are already on the books in some states that local officials do not have to issue marriage licenses or solemnize same sex marriages. Now a state civil rights law protecting LGBT people has a religious exclusion. Some adoption agencies don’t have to recognize same sex parents. Little things like that will continue to chip away at the overall equality of same sex marriage.
Brody
Such delusion.
Abortion is not illegal in the U.S., and marriages cannot be annulled without the approval of at least one party of the marriage.
qlm
Part of the issue that rarely seems to be noticed, is that the Supreme Court does basically 2 things. They handle appeals from other courts, and determine whether a law violates the constitution. If you change the constitution then the Court has to uphold the change. So we are never truly safe, if a constitutional amendment were to pass that becomes law of the land. that is why the Right was trying to get an amendment to make marriage between a man and a woman, that would prevent the court from protecting LGBT from marriage discrimination.
Juanjo
The Supreme Court has not commonly reversed its own decisions but it has happened. In the case of abortion remember that Roe v Wade says a state can enforce reasonable restrictions on abortion if public policy requires it. This is why the anti-abortion people have worked very hard to whittle down the right to abortion in this country and have done so quite well. They are currently doing the same now with regard to same-sex marriage. Do not for a second think a majority of the Supreme Court could not at some future time write an opinion which says when we wrote xyz in our decision, we did not mean it the way you are interpreting it here. They have done it repeatedly in other circumstances.
o.codone
If you wear a MAGA hat in NYC, an establishment can deny you service because political speech is not protected under anti-discrimination laws. This seems to go against fundamental rights to be treated equally without regard to any special circumstances. But I guess not. I was hoping the SC was going to clarify this whole gray area of the law (or lack of law), but it seems like they sidestepped it instead.
Josh in OR
If you wear Nazi parephenalia anywhere civilized, you can expect to be denied service as well. Hate is not a protected class. MAGA is hate, considering how they want to ‘make America great again’ by subjugating women, oppressing minorities, promoting one state religion, and giving control of the state over to corporations.
Roan
You can choose political ideology. You don’t make a choice to be gay.
Heywood Jablowme
“Will & Grace” recently anticipated all this. Karen (personal friend of Don & Melania) went to a bakery to order a special MAGA cake, The owner (NYC liberal lesbian) refused to make it. Grace reluctantly went down there to support Karen (ugh!).
I don’t want to give away the ending, but it was funny.
Juanjo
Under the Constitution, everyone has freedom of speech. However, there is no right to speak freely and not face repercussions from other private individuals and businesses. You are only protected from the government banning you from speaking or throwing you in jail for speaking. To restrict one private person’s right to speak by not allowing him to respond to the free speech of another person violates the very principle of free speech. The entire purpose of the principle of free speech is the free exchange of opinion. BTW there is NO RIGHT to be treated equally when it comes to free speech, at least as far as private businesses or persons among themselves. If you cannot understand that basic idea then you are rather limited intellectually or very poorly educated.
DHT
No one should have to endure the humiliation of being told “we don’t serve your kind” upon entering an establishment for any service. Services should be forced to post appropriate signage going forward.to the effect “we refuse the right to service based upon our religious beliefs”. I guarantee a lot of them would go right out of business if they posted such signage. Businesses know it so they would refuse to comply…there is the law suit we can win. Either that or we’re gonna need a Gay Greenbook.
Josh in OR
On your point that ‘no one should have to endure the humiliation of being told “we don’t serve your kind” upon entering an establishment’, I would disagree. Nazis should face that hipumiliation repeatedly. Meninists should as well. Incels, too. Rapists. Pedophiles. Fundamentalist evangelicals. You know…the worst of the worst among us.
As to the gwy greenbook, how sad is it that we, as a nation, have regressed enough that this is a thing we, as a community, have to give serious consideration to, again…
Josh in OR
Uggggggh, we need a damn edit function…typing on a mobile and then seeing my spelling errors is KILLING me….
Heywood Jablowme
There IS a “Gay Greenbook” and has been for decades, it’s called the Pink Pages.
Kangol
It was a technical ruling, though the 7-2 split, but it is deeply disturbing because so many states (a majority) do not have state-wide protections for LGBTQ people, meaning that you can get married in every US state and federal territory, but you could still be fired in a number of them for being gay or being perceived as gay, denied housing, etc. We need a federal law providing full equality and equal protection (which is in the US Constitution, 14th Amendment) under the law. I keep hearing people on the radio defending this and saying, Yes, businesses should be able to deny service to whomever they want, but we went through this, for hundreds of years. It was called de facto racial segregation before Jim Crow, and racist Jim Crow segregation–apartheid, US style–afterwards. And it was horrendous, and wrong. And about as un-Christian as you can get.
Another thing I have seen few people bring up is this: what if a conservative Christian says he wants to deny baking a cake for Buddhists, or Muslims, or Sikhs? Is that protected? Many on the right are decrying Sharia law, but what if fundamentalist Muslims control all the businesses in an area and a non-Muslim minority (let alone a gay person) wants a cake; what if they say No, only fundamentalists can be served. Is that OK? What if an atheist says he refuses to bake for Christians of any sect? What if someone from a white nationalist/supremacist “religion” decides that he doesn’t want to bake a cake for any person of color, particularly someone who’s black? And what if there aren’t other bakeries, or other venues for “artistic expression,” so that people don’t have another option? Where does this “religious exception” end?
Kangol
“thus the 7-2 split”
Umoja
Yeah – it is not the unanimous or totalising victory that many are regarding it as. Simply the ruling that the court found there was anti-religious bias.
What doesn’t make sense to me is that ‘do not commit adultery’ is a relgious belief, but ‘my cake baking always means endorsement of my client’s personal lives’ is actually a political belief not consistent with any reading of the Bible (the book that tracks generations and generations of slaves or a people under occupation, which never assumes their labour is an endorsement of those that benefit from it)
Josh447
If you will research the ruling further you will find that the Colorado Commission made derogatory statements towards the cake bakers religious beliefs. That is not allowed. That is the only reason the Supreme Court ruled in this one specific case the way it did. LGBT rights in general have not been affected at all. It’s simply a lesson in not degrading religious beliefs but simply directing towards the law only. Cake bakers are not allowed to deny gay people cakes because of this ruling.
Xzamilloh
Thank you. I too had a visceral reaction to the ruling until I read the decision, and then it was clear that there was no “victory” for the right, and only specifically for this baker.
Umoja
Thanks – so few new outlets are covering that specific point – but instead vaguely referring to ‘anti religious bias’ without exposing what was biased.
Josh447
I too had a really visceral reaction until more of the facts came to light. I’d like to be a fly on the wall when Tony Perkins Franklin Graham and the Benham brothers get their com’in to Jesus moment of realization. I hear Jesus throws perfect face pies.
Terrycloth
Somebody won’t like something about you and claim religious grounds as an out not to serve you..i shop online . Nobody knows what color religion my sexuality or gender they can’t see me .I buy what I like .no problems.. put a sign in your window that’s big enough for all to.see printed clearly something like we serve all.now you don’t see any sign…go elsrwhere
Heywood Jablowme
Well, maybe you can buy MOST things online. But shipping a wedding cake would be difficult!
Rob91316
Frankly, I wish every bigot who doesn’t want to serve me would put a shingle on their front door saying so. That way I know which businesses I definitely DO NOT want to be giving my hard-earned money to. There’s another baker across the street who is happy to bake me a cake, because as a sensible person he realizes that the all-mighty dollar is blind to race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, etc. As we’ve seen time and again, these nitwits inevitably drive their own business into the arms of their competitors by being so brazen in their bigotry, then have to fold up shop and slink away in shame as social pariahs, back under the rock from which they came until they can finish evolving themselves for the practicalities of real world living in the ultra-diverse, globalized 21st century.
Josh447
Gay rights regarding cakes and religious freedom was not addressed in this ruling.
Mainly the jist was about respecting religious beliefs, though no one has to follow them.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-baker/supreme-court-hands-narrow-win-to-baker-over-gay-couple-dispute-idUSKCN1J01WU
Agent9902
*A little late, but it took me 3 hrs to register to this site, and create a profile image on wordpress?*
I’m satisfied with the ruling. The only reason Cake masters won is because the smaller court actually did disrespect his religious ideology with the statement’s they made. Yes, I agree with Ginsberg’s dissenting opinion. I also want to stress that this in no way has set a precedent. This is an important point. It was obvious to the judges that it was wrong to discriminate based on sexual orientation, but that was not actually the appeal. The appeal to the earlier ruling was brought before SCOTUS because of the lower court’s statements. Had it not been for this technicality, Cake masters would have lost. This is also the opinion of the ACLU. I logged on to Queerty, just out of curiosity, and their take on it was all spin. The truth came from NYT, I think. Obviously, if a Jewish couple wanted a cake and he refused, it would clearly be discrimination. There is no reason to believe gay couples would be treated differently under the law, in this case. The reason I say all this is because you’re my friends, and I don’t want you to be upset. Some articles on this see the upside for future cases of this kind. It’s really not as bad as it looks topically. Just my opinion, and of course, I could be a little off point. Please, school me if I’m missing something.
Josh447
You’re right on. Here is a NYT article that is quite succinct on the issue. Lgbts lost nothing in this ruling.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html
Mandrake
Exactly! The SCOTUS ruled against the intolerant and bigoted Colorado Civil Rights Commission who blindly supported the gay couple and disparaged the baker with ani-religious comments. They also ruled on this case back in 2013 before the SCOTUS’s ruling on gay marriage.
It had NOTHING to do with the actual issue of whether businesses open to the public must service the GLBT. So, the conservatives crying victory simply don’t understand why they won in this particular case and shouldn’t ignorantly jump the gun.
DCguy
This is a narrow ruling that only had to do with the technicality of what happened in the initial case. But the Trump supportive accounts will keep coming on trying to push the narrative here that lgbts should be denied service, and pretending that Trump supporters are the REAL victims.
Brody
So a black baker has to bake a cake celebrating the Ku Klux Klan?
A Catholic a cake celebrating abortion?
A Jew a cake celebrating the Nazis?
This is the logic being applied here, people.
(I don’t actually expect any answers to these questions, being that this comment will likely be silenced for being “offensive” and “sensible”)
Kangol
I think your question is fine, Mo Brody. It’s meant to be provocative, which is what leads to dialogue. Rather than your hypotheticals, let’s look at US reality:
You have had white bakers–restaurants, hotels, public businesses and private organizations of all kinds, etc.–that refused to serve black people just because they were black, or gave them second-class service at best. This happened for over 150 years (200+ in some parts of the US), and required a series of brutal struggles to end the discrimination, which was written into law.
You have had Protestant employers who did not want to employ Roman Catholics–Irish, Italians, etc.–just because they were Catholic, specific European ethnicities or immigrants. I have saved clippings of some of these from the early 20th century, but signs of this sort were posted on the doors of restaurants, other business establishments, etc. Thankfully it has mostly ended as well.
You had US universities–Harvard, etc.–that imposed quotas on Jewish students to limit their admission, because they were Jewish, and devised all kinds of ways to keep Jews out. This also happened with housing, with private organizations, etc. All because they were Jewish. Things quite obviously were far worse in Nazi Germany and other Nazi-occupied regions of Europe, where Jews, the Roma, Slavs, etc. were slaughtered en masse.
If you are a business and are not specialized (you only sell Kosher meats, Halal food, etc.) and you serve the general public in any capacity, then you should not discriminate. It’s a slippery but steady slope to other kinds of discrimination and bias.
Xzamilloh
To answer your question, Brody….yes.
Part of defending our own rights means defending the rights of those we don’t like… if we have free speech, so do nazis and klansmen. The issue I have with your analogy is that you attempt to juxtapose a gay couple asking for a wedding cake to individuals coming into someone’ bakery and asking for hate speech or incendiary comments to be added to a cake. Unless that gay couple is going into that shop and asking for a cake that says “I Hate Jesus and Come Watch Our Honeymoon on OnlyFans” it’s not remotely the same.
But, in any case, if a klansmen wanted a cake, I would give him a cake, but I wouldn’t add any messages like “Blacks are Bad” or something much worse because the kind of speech you mentioned is not protected under the first amendment (obscenities and words meant to incite violent reactions). Because it’s not just about turning away someone I don’t like, but ensuring that even the worst in our society have their basic rights preserved… and yeah, even those that discriminate have the right to not be discriminated against… it sucks, but we need to be as principled as we expect others to be.
Juanjo
Brody – these rather pathetic arguments have been made in the past and refuted, completely, over and again. The Ku Klux Klan, Nazis and abortion are ALL political speech. Political speech is NOT protected from discrimination from other private businesses or individuals. It never has been. To do so would violate the free speech rights of the Black, Jew, or Catholic mentioned in your argument.
BTW when using the word “black” as a proper noun as you did above, it must be capitalized and thus, written as Black. If you are using it simply as a color then it need not be capitalized. Hence, “there are men sitting in Starbucks who are black” vs “there are three Black men sitting in Starbucks”. See the APA, “racial and ethnic groups are designated by proper nouns and are capitalized: Black and White”. APA Publication Manual, 6th edition, 3.14, p. 75
Godfrey321
I don’t want to cause too much trouble but while I don’t like the ruling I do support it. Those who are opposed should answer the following questions.
Should a Jewish bakery be forced to bake a cake commemorating Hitler?
Should a Black church be forced to host a white supremacist wedding?
Should a Muslim butcher shop be forced to sell pork?
Really if we’re talking a hospital or something like that they shouldn’t be able to deny services but a bakery? Come on there are so many bakeries around.
Xzamilloh
The black church example is stupid…. churches are free to deny their services to gay couples, interracial couples, interfaith couples, and any other couple because they are free to discriminate. Also, muslim butchers? Yeah, newsflash: If they don’t sell a product, they don’t sell it and can’t be forced to so… that’d be like forcing Taco Bell to sell cheeseburgers because you wanted a cheeseburger there. And Jewish bakeries being forced to bake a cake celebrating/commemorating Hitler? That is classified as patently offensive and obscene, and no baker is mandated to put offensive messages on their cakes.
Wow…. so these were all terrible examples. Okay.
Josh447
Bc all sexual orientations are inborn natural traits at birth, discrimination towards this fact is completely infantile. Your examples have nothing to do with inborn biology and therfore have no rational basis within this biological formula.
Juanjo
These arguments have been trotted out in the past and refuted, completely, over and again. The examples you reference are invalid and/or are logical fallacies.
1. A cake commemorating Hitler is an example of political speech. Political speech is not protected from discrimination by other private individuals or businesses. So a Jew could refuse to sell a cake to a Nazi or to decorate a cake with a picture or slogan commemorating Hitler.
2. A Black church is unlikely to have members who are White Supremacists and a church has special rights under US law. A church can and often do restrict access to their facilities and rituals to members in good standing of their particular church. In addition, see the discussion regarding political speech mentioned above. White supremacy is a political speech example and thus, people advocating it can be denied service based upon that political speech.
3. A Muslim butcher is always my favorite one of these absurd arguments. First, there are non-observant Jewish and Muslim butchers who sell meat products which their religion prohibits them from consuming. Other sell only products which are respectively kosher or halal. A butcher who does not sell pork is not required to sell it to anyone demanding it. Just like Chik-fil-A is not required to prepare me a pastrami sandwich if I go in and demand one.
I have seen bigots trot these pathetic arguments out all the time. I have also seen them shot down pathetically. The fact you trot them out now says a lot about you.
Godfrey321
They think because they are big they don’t have to listen to their audience.
STS
I’m mixed on this one, I try to find the win\win in most situations but it’s really hard in this situation. Because of the artistic quality of the cakes in this bakery, it seems wrong to make the guy create something that has a message that he can’t support.
For the couple, it sucks to feel marginalized and to be discrimnated against.
Since this is a private business, the proprietor should be able to decide what he will or will not sell, but not so much to whom he will sell. So it seems reasonable that he should be willing to sell a cake to the couple, but not reasonable that he should have to decorate that cake in a way that offends his religious views.
To me this hinges on the custom decoration of the cake, not the generic parts of the whole cake making process. that being said, the win\win would likely be outsourcing, some designs would be handled in house and some would not. This would allow the shop to meet the needs of the customer, but not require that the religious freedom of the decorator to be compromised.
A solution like this allows the company to offer custom services to all its patrons and at the same time not trample over anyone’s constitutional rights.