In Narrow Opinion, Supreme Court Rules For Baker In Gay-Rights Case

Enlarge this image toggle caption David Zalubowski/AP David Zalubowski/AP

Law Two Big Decisions From The Supreme Court 2 Big Decisions From The Supreme Court Listen · 4:51 4:51

The U.S. Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the 7-to-2 decision was on the narrowest of grounds and left unresolved whether business owners have a free speech right to refuse to sell goods and services to same-sex couples.

The case began when a same-sex couple in Colorado — Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins — filed a complaint with the state civil-rights commission after baker Jack Phillips told them that he did not design custom cakes for gay couples. Colorado, like most states, has a state anti-discrimination law for businesses that are open to the public. Twenty-one states, including Colorado, have laws that bar discrimination based on sexual orientation, in addition to barring discrimination based on race, religion and gender.

Acting on the complaint filed by Craig and Mullins, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the couple, as did the state Supreme Court. Phillips appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. As he put it last December, "It is hard for me to believe the government is forcing me to choose between providing for my family ... and violating my relationship with God."

Dud, not dynamite

The case seemed to set up a direct clash between Phillips' religious and free speech rights, and the enforcement of Colorado's law. But Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the court majority on Monday, threaded the needle far more narrowly. Kennedy said it is "unexceptional" that Colorado law "can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions that are offered to other members of the public," but at the same time, "the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

In this case, Kennedy concluded, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of Phillips' case was "compromised" by the comments of one of seven commissioners at a public hearing — comments that Kennedy said disparaged Phillips' faith as "despicable" and comparable to comments made by those who sought to justify slavery on religious grounds. Moreover, the state law at the time afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline creating specific messages they considered offensive, and the Colorado commission had previously allowed three different bakers to refuse to put an anti-gay message on a cake.

Even though the court majority sided with Phillips, Monday's decision was not a roaring defense of business owners' right to discriminate in the name of religion. As Washington University law professor Elizabeth Sepper put it, "The decision from the court is a punt, but it could have been dynamite instead of a dud."

Yale law professor William Eskridge described the decision as "a draw which goes slightly in favor of religious freedom."

Throughout the opinion, Kennedy seemed to be balancing the ledger, trying not to disturb public accommodation laws like the one in Colorado and reiterating that gay people may "not be treated as outcasts." While a member of the clergy clearly cannot be forced to conduct a wedding ceremony for a same-sex couple, in violation of his religious views, Kennedy said, Colorado "can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals."

Lessons for the future, such as for the travel ban case

In his opinion, Kennedy went out of his way to say that decisions on specific cases in the future may well be different. He closed by saying that "the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await 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, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Professor Thomas Berg of St. Thomas Law School in Minnesota saw Monday's decision as "a toe in the water" for the Supreme Court. "This is the court's first tangle with the issue," he said, and "they clearly wanted to proceed slowly."

As UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh observes, there is much that today's decision doesn't tell us about "what happens with bakers, florists, photographers, videographers, calligraphers" and other businesses, "where the government says, look, we don't much care about your religiosity. We just think you have to provide these services for same-sex weddings."

Elliott Mincberg, senior counsel for People for the American Way, said the decision sends a potent message to state and local governments for the future and "will put a high premium" on those bodies "being careful how they talk about religious objections."

Notwithstanding the assessment across the academic ideological spectrum, conservative groups trumpeted their victory Monday. David Cortman, senior counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, called the case "a significant win for religious freedom."

If so, what is down the road in the travel ban case currently before the Supreme Court, in which a great deal of hostility to Muslims was expressed by President Trump, both before and after he was elected?

After Monday's decision, Yale law professor Robert Post said he was "looking forward to the question of whether the court applies the same sort of reasoning to the Muslim ban case, that is to say, whether statements which are discriminatory in their purpose infect the whole record of decision-making."

A divided court

Despite the lopsided 7-2 vote in Monday's ruling, the court appeared deeply fractured. Seven justices agreed that Phillips was entitled to a fair hearing from the Colorado commission and that the hearing he had received — in which one commissioner compared Phillips' invocation of his beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust — didn't meet that standard.

Despite this consensus, there were four separate opinions filed for the majority. While Kennedy's opinion spoke for the court, there were three concurring opinions elaborating on agreements and disagreements with Kennedy's reasoning.

Liberal justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer wrote separately to say that bakers may refuse to make a cake with a message they find offensive, so long as they would refuse the same message to any customer.

Conservative Justices Neil Gorsuch and Samuel Alito disagreed with Kagan and Breyer. They argued that as the Colorado commission had previously allowed bakers to refuse to decorate cakes with anti-gay designs, the commission's decision to rule against Phillips was inherently inconsistent and discriminated against some religious groups.

Justice Clarence Thomas' opinion, joined by Gorsuch, was the only one that addressed Phillips' free speech claim, arguing that cake decorating is expressive and protected from government restriction under the First Amendment.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, contending that principles of anti-discrimination required ruling against Phillips. The offensive remarks of a single commission member, they said, did not taint the proceedings, which were reviewed by two courts afterward.

"Whatever one may think of the statements in historical context," Ginsburg said, "I see no reason why the comments of one or two commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips' refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins."</s>WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, ruling that the state exhibited "religious hostility" against him.

The 7-2 verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage in 2012, several years before the practice was legalized nationwide. The justices ruled that a state civil rights commission was hostile to him while allowing other bakers to refuse to create cakes that demeaned gays and same-sex marriages.

As a result, the long-awaited decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, including bakers, florists, photographers and videographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples. Phillips' victory, the court said, was limited to the facts of the Colorado case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's decision against the same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, departing from his long history of opinions in favor of gay rights dating back a generation. Included among them was the court's 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

More: Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to high court

More: Same-sex marriage foes stick together despite long odds

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts," Kennedy said. "These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor cast the lone dissents. Fellow liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the majority.

"Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others," Ginsburg said.

Kennedy reasoned that Phillips, in refusing to create a same-sex wedding cake, had good reason to believe he was within his rights. State law at the time allowed merchants some latitude to decline specific messages, such as those demeaning gay people and gay marriages.

The government cannot impose regulations hostile to citizens' religious beliefs, the ruling said.

During oral argument in December, Kennedy and other conservative justices had expressed concern about the potential effect on other merchants with strong religious objections to same-sex marriage, from chefs to florists.

The five-year-old legal battle between Phillips and Craig and Mullins represented a test between the Constitution's guarantees of free speech and religion and laws in 22 states prohibiting discrimination against the LGBT community.

Phillips, 62, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was fighting for the rights of "creative artists" to choose what they will sell. Craig, 37, and Mullins, 33, were fighting for the rights of LGBT customers to choose what they will buy.

Craig and Mullins won before the state Civil Rights Commission and Court of Appeals, thanks to the state's inclusion of sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination law. But the Supreme Court, bolstered last April by the addition of stalwart conservative and fellow Coloradan Neil Gorsuch, represented a tougher test.

Gorsuch wrote a 12-page concurrence in which he said, "The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation off civil authorities. It protects them all."

The high court had weighed in twice before on the subject of same-sex marriage. In 2013, it ruled that the federal government must recognize gay and lesbian marriages in the 12 states that had legalized them. In 2015, it extended same-sex marriage nationwide.

But even as he authored the court's landmark decision, Kennedy held out an olive branch to religious conservatives.

"It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned," Kennedy wrote in 2015.</s>Colorado "cake artist" Jack Phillips asked the Supreme Court for the right to refuse creating a wedding cake for a gay couple's celebration.

WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, ruling that the state exhibited "religious hostility" against him.

The 7-2 verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage in 2012, several years before the practice was legalized nationwide. The justices ruled that a state civil rights commission was hostile to him while allowing other bakers to refuse to create cakes that demeaned gays and same-sex marriages.

As a result, the long-awaited decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, including bakers, florists, photographers and videographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples. Phillips' victory, the court said, was limited to the facts of the Colorado case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's decision against the same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, departing from his long history of opinions in favor of gay rights dating back a generation. Included among them was the court's 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

More: Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to high court

More: Same-sex marriage foes stick together despite long odds

Kennedy acknowledged that business owners generally cannot deny equal access to goods and services under a neutral public accommodations law. Otherwise, he said, "a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws."

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts," Kennedy said. "These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor cast the lone dissents. Fellow liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the majority.

"Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others," Ginsburg said.

Kennedy reasoned that Phillips, in refusing to create a same-sex wedding cake, had good reason to believe he was within his rights. State law at the time allowed merchants some latitude to decline specific messages, such as those demeaning gay people and gay marriages.

The government cannot impose regulations hostile to citizens' religious beliefs, the ruling said. But it was limited to Colorado's treatment of Phillips; had the process been fair, Kagan and Breyer likely would have been on the other side, and Kennedy would have had a tougher decision to make.

"A vendor can choose the products he sells, but not the customers he serves — no matter the reason," Kagan wrote, joined by Breyer. "Phillips sells wedding cakes. As to that product, he unlawfully discriminates: He sells it to opposite-sex but not to same-sex couples."

Gay rights proponents picked up on that theme, noting the ruling will not affect other claims of discrimination by same-sex couples.

“Anti-LGBTQ extremists did not win the sweeping ‘license to discriminate’ they have been hoping for -- and today’s ruling does not change our nation's longstanding civil rights laws," Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, said.

But Ralph Reed, chairman of the Faith and Freedom Coalition, claimed that the decision "reaffirmed that the Constitution protects freedom of speech, including speech of a religious content, and the state cannot compel speech against the will of the individual."

During oral argument in December, Kennedy and other conservative justices had expressed concern about the potential effect on other merchants with strong religious objections to same-sex marriage, from chefs to florists.

The five-year-old legal battle between Phillips and Craig and Mullins represented a test between the Constitution's guarantees of free speech and religion and laws in 22 states prohibiting discrimination against the LGBT community.

Phillips, 62, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was fighting for the rights of "creative artists" to choose what they will sell. Craig, 37, and Mullins, 33, were fighting for the rights of LGBT customers to choose what they will buy.

Craig and Mullins won before the state Civil Rights Commission and Court of Appeals, thanks to the state's inclusion of sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination law. But the Supreme Court, bolstered last April by the addition of stalwart conservative and fellow Coloradan Neil Gorsuch, represented a tougher test.

Gorsuch wrote a 12-page concurrence in which he said, "The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation off civil authorities. It protects them all."

The high court had weighed in twice before on the subject of same-sex marriage. In 2013, it ruled that the federal government must recognize gay and lesbian marriages in the 12 states that had legalized them. In 2015, it extended same-sex marriage nationwide.

But even as he authored the court's landmark decision, Kennedy held out an olive branch to religious conservatives.

"It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned," Kennedy wrote in 2015.</s>WASHINGTON – A divided Supreme Court on Monday absolved a Colorado baker of discrimination for refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple, ruling that the state exhibited "religious hostility" against him.

The 7-2 verdict criticized the state's treatment of Jack Phillips' religious objections to gay marriage in 2012, several years before the practice was legalized nationwide. The justices ruled that a state civil rights commission was hostile to him while allowing other bakers to refuse to create cakes that demeaned gays and same-sex marriages.

As a result, the long-awaited decision did not resolve whether other opponents of same-sex marriage, including bakers, florists, photographers and videographers, can refuse commercial wedding services to gay couples. Phillips' victory, the court said, was limited to the facts of the Colorado case.

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the court's decision against the same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, departing from his long history of opinions in favor of gay rights dating back a generation. Included among them was the court's 2015 decision legalizing gay marriage nationwide.

More: Gay couple, devout baker take cake fight to high court

More: Same-sex marriage foes stick together despite long odds

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts," Kennedy said. "These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor cast the lone dissents. Fellow liberal Justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan voted with the majority.

"Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others," Ginsburg said.

Kennedy reasoned that Phillips, in refusing to create a same-sex wedding cake, had good reason to believe he was within his rights. State law at the time allowed merchants some latitude to decline specific messages, such as those demeaning gay people and gay marriages.

The government cannot impose regulations hostile to citizens' religious beliefs, the ruling said.

During oral argument in December, Kennedy and other conservative justices had expressed concern about the potential effect on other merchants with strong religious objections to same-sex marriage, from chefs to florists.

The five-year-old legal battle between Phillips and Craig and Mullins represented a test between the Constitution's guarantees of free speech and religion and laws in 22 states prohibiting discrimination against the LGBT community.

Phillips, 62, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was fighting for the rights of "creative artists" to choose what they will sell. Craig, 37, and Mullins, 33, were fighting for the rights of LGBT customers to choose what they will buy.

Craig and Mullins won before the state Civil Rights Commission and Court of Appeals, thanks to the state's inclusion of sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination law. But the Supreme Court, bolstered last April by the addition of stalwart conservative and fellow Coloradan Neil Gorsuch, represented a tougher test.

Gorsuch wrote a 12-page concurrence in which he said, "The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation off civil authorities. It protects them all."

The high court had weighed in twice before on the subject of same-sex marriage. In 2013, it ruled that the federal government must recognize gay and lesbian marriages in the 12 states that had legalized them. In 2015, it extended same-sex marriage nationwide.

But even as he authored the court's landmark decision, Kennedy held out an olive branch to religious conservatives.

"It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned," Kennedy wrote in 2015.</s>SALT LAKE CITY — The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of a Christian baker in its high-profile wedding cake case, deciding that the state of Colorado failed to respect the baker's religious exercise rights.

"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," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion.

The narrow ruling focuses on the actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission rather than the larger question of whether religious objectors to same-sex marriage should be exempted from LGBT nondiscrimination laws.

"Colorado can treat a baker who discriminates based on sexual orientation differently from a baker who does not discriminate on that or any other prohibited ground. But only, as the court rightly says, if the state's decisions are not infected by religious hostility or bias," wrote Justice Elena Kagan in her concurring opinion, which was joined by Justice Stephen Breyer.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case originated in July 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop with Craig’s mother, Debbie Munn. The group met with baker and store owner Jack Phillips about ordering cake for an upcoming celebration of their marriage. Phillips said his Christian faith prevented him for providing a cake for a same-sex wedding.

Mullins and Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, because Colorado law prevents discrimination based on sexual orientation. An administrative law judge, the commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled in the couple’s favor, so Phillips appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case was closely followed by faith groups, small-business owners, legal scholars and LGBT rights advocates, who all have a stake in efforts to balance religious freedom and nondiscrimination protections.

For the baker’s supporters, the case was about finding a way to respect conflicting beliefs about marriage. For those rallying behind Craig and Mullins, it was about ensuring fair treatment for the LGBT community.</s>WASHINGTON — In a 7-2 decision June 4, the Supreme Court sided with a Colorado baker in a case that put anti-discrimination laws up against freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority, said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom in its ruling against the baker, who refused to make a wedding cake for the same-sex couple.

Kennedy noted the case had a limited scope, writing that the issue “must await further elaboration.” Across the country, appeals in similar cases are pending, including another case at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.

The ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission stems from the case argued before the court last December from an incident in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, to make a cake for their wedding reception. Phillips refused, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to create a cake honoring their marriage.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided the baker’s action violated state law. The decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals. The Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t take the case, letting the ruling stand. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

During oral arguments at the high court, many questions came up about what constituted speech, since the baker claimed he should have freedom of speech protection.

The ruling’s opinion honed in on the argument of free speech and religious neutrality, saying the baker’s refusal was based on “sincere religious beliefs and convictions” and when the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, the court said, “it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.”

The court opinion also noted the delicate balance at stake in this case, saying: “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason, the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

But delving further, the court deemed the specific cake in question was an artistic creation, not just a baked good. It said, “If a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter,” noting that the state would have a strong case that this would be a denial of goods and services going beyond protected rights of a baker.

Here, the court said the issue was the baker’s argument that he “had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation.”

The court opinion goes on to say that as Phillips’ contention “has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers’ rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs.”

Ginsburg, writing in her dissenting opinion, joined by Sotomayor, stressed there are aspects of the court’s opinion she agreed with but she “strongly” disagreed with the idea that the same-sex couple “should lose this case” and she felt that neither the commissioners’ statements about religion nor the commission’s treatment of other bakers who refused to make cakes disapproving of same-sex marriage justified a ruling in favor of Phillips.

Ashley McGuire, senior fellow with the Catholic Association, a group that emphasizes religious freedom, described the court’s ruling as a “clear win for religious liberty and expression.”

In other immediate reaction: Kristen Waggoner, senior counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Phillips, praised the court for showing that “government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society.”

Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, stressed the narrowness of the court’s opinion, emphasizing that it was 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.”

The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops filed a friend-of-the court brief in support of the baker, joined by the Colorado Catholic Conference, Catholic Bar Association, Catholic Medical Association, National Association of Catholic Nurses-USA and National Catholic Bioethics Center.

After oral arguments were presented late last year in this case, the chairmen of three USCCB committees issued a statement saying: “America has the ability to serve every person while making room for valid conscientious objection.”

The committees’ statement also said it hoped the court would continue to “preserve the ability of people to live out their faith in daily life, regardless of their occupation,” noting that artists “deserve to have the freedom to express ideas — or to decline to create certain messages — in accordance with their deeply held beliefs.”</s>The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 today in support of a christian Colorado baker who declined to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. (full pdf below) The majority of the justices’ decision revolved around the severity of anti-religious bias displayed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it originally ruled against the baker Jack Phillips. According to the ruling the commission violated Mr. Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.

The court did not rule upon whether Mr. Phillips held a first amendment right to refuse to bake the cake; the court ruled Mr. Phillips first amendment rights, religious liberty, was actually violated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission itself. Much irony here.

Due to the severity of discrimination, exhibited by the Colorado Commission, against the first amendment right of the baker to hold and express Christianity as a foundational moral value, the Supreme court ruled against Colorado to support the rights of the Mr. Phillips.

As Amy Howe summarized for SCOTUS Blog: […] “the critical question of when and how Phillips’ right to exercise his religion can be limited had to be determined, Kennedy emphasized, in a proceeding that was not tainted by hostility to religion. Here, Kennedy observed, the “neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised” by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” And at a later meeting, Kennedy pointed out, one commissioner “even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.” “This sentiment,” Kennedy admonished, “is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.” Moreover, Kennedy added, the commission’s treatment of Phillips’ religious objections was at odds with its rulings in the cases of bakers who refused to create cakes “with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage.”

Here, Kennedy wrote, Phillips “was entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.” Because he did not have such a proceeding, the court concluded, the commission’s order – which, among other things, required Phillips to sell same-sex couples wedding cakes or anything else that he would sell to opposite-sex couples and mandated remedial training and compliance reports – “must be set aside.” (read more)</s>
• In a 7-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same sex couple.
• The baker, Jack Phillips, told the couple no based off his Christian beliefs.
• The high court found the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in violation of Phillips' rights for showing "hostility" towards his religious beliefs.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Christian baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a custom cake for same sex couple Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins.

The vote was 7-2 and according to the ruling written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, the court found the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated Phillips' rights by showing hostility towards his religious beliefs.

After refusing to bake a cake for Craig and Mullins back in 2012, the commission ordered Phillips to undergo anti-discrimination training as well as "cease and desist" refusing custom cakes for same sex couples.

"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy wrote.

The decision angered many, and left some people feeling unprotected.

Some agreed with the Supreme Court ruling while still disagreeing with the baker's anti-LGBT beliefs.

The main issue people found with the ruling is its broad nature. The justice's narrow ruling hinged on the treatment of Phillips from the civil rights commission, and didn't really address the first amendment issues related to the case.

Sign up here to get INSIDER's favorite stories straight to your inbox.</s>WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court is setting aside a Colorado court ruling against a baker who wouldn’t make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. But the court is not deciding the big issue in the case, whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

The justices’ limited ruling Monday turns on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. The justices voted 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.

Justice Anthony Kennedy says in his majority opinion that the issue “must await further elaboration.” Appeals in similar cases are pending, including one at the Supreme Court from a florist who didn’t want to provide flowers for a same-sex wedding.</s>The US Supreme Court ruled 7-2 today in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.

But the narrowly-written opinion doesn’t grant business owners the broad exemptions based on personal views that religious groups had hoped for, and civil rights groups feared, and even defends the rights of gay Americans.

Civil rights groups were concerned that the Supreme Court could rule broadly in Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that making a cake amounted to free speech, opening the door for more small businesses to discriminate against gay couples under the First Amendment. Instead, the seven justices ruling in favor of Masterpiece focused on the specifics surrounding the Colorado baker’s complaint, and particularly how the state civil rights commission handled it.

Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, argued that baking—specifically, creating a custom wedding cake—is a form of self-expression, and that same-sex unions violate his faith. So, he argued, the state should exempt him from anti-discrimination laws because the constitution protects free speech and freedom of religion.

The fact that he refused to bake the couple’s wedding cake in July of 2012 made his obstinance “understandable,” according the Supreme Court decision, because gay marriage was not yet legal in Colorado at the time. It would later be legalized nationwide in the landmark 2015 Obergefell case.

His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. 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. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive.

The ruling also had harsh words for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which initially reviewed the dispute between baker and would-be clients, and favored the couple.

As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case

Therefore, the opinion says, “Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside.”

Yet the Supreme Court ruling also specifically defends the rights of gay Americans. “Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” the majority opinion says.

While religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected under the First Amendment, the court warns, “It is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services.”

Exceptions to the anti-discrimination rule, it adds, must be strictly limited:

The court noted that Phillips’ exemption from anti-discrimination laws will not be broadly applicable in the future:
The U.S. Supreme Court rules in favor of a baker who sued Colorado's civil-rights commission on grounds of religious discrimination.