Previous post
![SCOTUS Rules 7-2 For Masterpiece Cakeshop, CO Civil Rights Commission Hardest Hit [VIDEO]](https://victorygirlsblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/06/2017-11-29_14-44-31-e1511988318363-1.jpg)
The Supreme Court of the United States issued their ruling about the Masterpiece Cakeshop case that we’ve blogged about here and here. Today SCOTUS ruled the following:
(1) By failing to exhibit “religious neutrality,” the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the free-exercise rights of a baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex wedding (opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop here);
That’s…blunt! Here is the backstory:
Phillips has served people from all walks of life. However, what he has consistently refused to do is make custom cakes for any occasion, including Halloween with messages that are antithetical to his religious beliefs.
David Mullens and Charlie Craig could’ve gracefully exited six years ago and gone elsewhere. Instead they threw a fit and took their case to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Who then proceeded to completely botch how they handled the case and exposed their extreme bias towards Jack Phillips. From SCOTUS majority opinion:
For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free ex- ercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious be- liefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices.
Co-blogger Jenny North outlines here her first impressions regarding the ruling.
SCOTUS, as Jenny points out, ruled on PROCESS. SCOTUS makes it very clear that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s animus was the very opposite of neutral.
#SCOTUS didn't resolve the hardest First Am. issues posed by Masterpiece Cakeshop. Instead, it pointed out that they're hard and then ruled that the baker didn't get a fair process from the state. pic.twitter.com/ypDaDy4iu9
— Brad Heath (@bradheath) June 4, 2018
Justice Kennedy, writing for the majority, deftly schooled the CO Civil Rights Commission.
“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, referring to the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.
“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,” Kennedy said.
How the commission mishandled the case while putting their OWN bias on full display was antithetical to how ANY civil rights commission should act or rule. Justice Neil Gorsuch:.
“The Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to act neutrally toward Jack Phillips’s religious faith,” Justice Gorsuch wrote. “Most notably, the Commission allowed three other bakers to refuse a customer’s request that would have required them to violate their secular commitments. Yet it denied the same accommodation to Mr. Phillips when he refused a customer’s request that would have required him to violate his religious beliefs.”
Remember, in 2012, Colorado did NOT recognize gay marriage and in fact state law gave latitude regarding the issue. Yet the Civil Rights Commission decided to make an example of Jack Phillips.
In view of these factors the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of Phil- lips’ religious beliefs.
It hardly requires restating that government has no role in deciding or even suggest- ing whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience- based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. On these facts, the Court must draw the inference that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality that the Free Exercise Clause requires.
Oh OUCH. That is gonna leave a mark.
Masterpiece is a win for gay rights groups that want to bar discrimination against same-sex couples, so long as the law is applied neutrally and without hostility to religion. But whether the very same law could sometimes violate free speech rights is still totally open.
— SCOTUSblog (@SCOTUSblog) June 4, 2018
The bright dim bulbs at The View had something to say.
And of course, Twitter.
WANTED: Some dude willing to fake an engagement with my gay ass so we can indulge in free wedding cake tastings at homophobic Christian bakeries.
Masterpiece Cakeshop
— Marie Connor (@thistallawkgirl) June 4, 2018
Reading comprehension is definitely needed on social media these days, and this case is a prime example of the lack thereof.
The cake is melting under all the "#SCOTUS just legalized discrimination" Masterpiece Cakeshop hot takes. "Go back and run the process again but without religious animus" is not the same as proclaiming a First Amendment right for the baker to turn down the wedding. #OpenToAll
— Walter Olson (@walterolson) June 4, 2018
Exactly! The CO Civil Rights Commission is supposed to be completely NEUTRAL regarding any and all cases that come before them no matter where anyone stands in terms of their faith. They willfully did not do so in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop and SCOTUS, rightly so, called them on the carpet for their biased animosity.
Raphael says: And the media hissy fit will begin in …3…2…1…
Robin H says: I’m not sure who she is, but at the 2 minute mark the blonde with white sweater says “It’s a slippery slope, when you start allowing people certain freedoms.” Allowing freedoms? Wow, that’s some really good socialist indoctrination right there!
Chris says: ‘Homophobia’ is itself a term of art, a propaganda hate term.
‘Gay panic’ and ‘self-hating closet gays’ were past fashions for denigrating anyone who doesn’t display the mandatory haggisaphilia or whatever the committee at the APA have invented this week.
GWB says: mandatory haggisaphilia
I like haggis! Does this mean I can sue the gov’t for its current hatred toward the production or importation of traditionally made haggis? Because, if so, I am ON THIS!
Freddie Sykes says: McCain pays lip service to capitalism but seems to forget that it is based on mutually agreeable freedom of choice in deciding how you conduct your business. She was right in that many other bakers would meet the gay couples needs for a custom cake but wrong in the idea that the “religion” of capitalism required the baker accept the task. An independent business man who is happy with his market niche does not need to expand at the expense of his personal life.
GWB says: Part of the problem is with accepting the word “capitalism”. It’s a Marxist construction, and a false one at that. When you use the term “free market” the evil of restricting freedom of association becomes obvious.
Also, who cares if anyone would meet the “need”? There’s LOTS of things I think there should be a market for, but no one is out there offering them. It’s called LIFE.
GWB says: David Mullens and Charlie Craig could’ve gracefully exited six years ago and gone elsewhere.
It’s NEVER been about freedom or equality, but ALWAYS been about power – specifically the power to force you to tell them how wonderful they are in their ‘difference’.
violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint
NO! No, no, no! The First Amendment is NOT about *basing* laws on hostility to religion! It’s about not restricting people’s religion. Period. It’s about not writing laws that even remotely infringe on the people’s rights to pick and choose with whom they will associate and to pick and choose what they will say and to pick and choose what they will believe.
They’ve already conceded the actual fight. Now they’re just negotiating the ghettoes in which we can live.
The CO Civil Rights Commission is supposed to be completely NEUTRAL regarding any and all cases that come before them no matter where anyone stands in terms of their faith.
The fact is that this is entirely impossible, given the law says you cannot express your faith because you opened a business (a “public accommodation” – one of the most atrocious fascist decisions of our national gov’t).
You can’t be neutral towards a religion that says “homosexuality is a perversion of the natural and right order of nature” when your law says “you must celebrate homosexuality and not consider it a perversion.”
7 Comments