Supreme Court sides with Christian Baker

The justices didn’t give Christians business owners carte blanche to discriminate against LGBT customers, as some early headlines reported.


The ruling is in. This morning, the Supreme Court announced a highly-anticipated decision on the case of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who was thrust into the spotlight back in 2012 after he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding.

Phillips insisted that his Christian beliefs make it impossible to provide service to gay couples without violating his conscience. In a surprise decision, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips.

What the Court Said

At first glance, this would seem a triumphant victory for religious freedom advocates and pro-Christian groups. However, upon closer inspection, the Supreme Court appears to have tip-toed around the central question of whether or not the religious beliefs of business owners allow them to discriminate against certain customers.

The ruling explains that the Court chose to side with Phillips because there was clear evidence that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (the body which initially ruled against him) was biased against the baker based on his Christian beliefs – NOT because the law gives religious people the right to discriminate against others.

In fact, in its decision, the Court made sure to acknowledge the rights of LGBT customers. “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,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy.

However, Kennedy also gave a nod to the other side, writing: “At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”

Jack Phillips waves to the crowd outside Supreme Court

Jack Phillips waves triumphantly to the crowd after hearing the decision.

Dodging the Issue

Despite all the hype surrounding this ruling, the dust quickly settled and it became obvious that the Court essentially just kicked the “religious discrimination” can down the road a bit. The justices didn’t give Christians business owners carte blanche to discriminate against LGBT customers, as some early headlines reported. Instead of tackling it head-on, they chose to issue a narrow ruling and let the central issue be revisited in a future case.

Crucial Questions Remain Unanswered

Jack Phillips took a stand against same-sex weddings by refusing to bake a cake. As he previously explained to reporters: “I didn’t want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith.”

But to the surprise of many, that point – the crux of the dispute, really – wasn’t explored by the Court. Perhaps the justices are simply hesitant to set a precedent on such a controversial issue. In their cautious approach, however, they left some thorny questions unanswered.

Do Christians have the right to refuse services for same-sex weddings?

What if the baker was Muslim and the couple asked for a cake with bacon on it – would that person have legal grounds to refuse service?

Similar scenarios could easily be thought up, and may indeed arise at some point in the future. How they will be handled is now anyone’s guess.

Does a Business Have the Right to Say “No”?

Ultimately, although Phillips and his legal team walked away happy today, the ruling itself was quite limited in scope. After all the waiting, religious freedom groups did not receive the sweeping decision they were hoping for. For LGBT-rights groups, a minor skirmish was lost but the war will continue on.

Where do you stand?

 

110 comments

  1. RMC says:

    My first impulse is to side with the gay couple, as a business should have to serve everyone. But I also find myself sympathetic to the baker. I am glad this is not my decision.

    1. Rev. Rene L. says:

      I am actually very surprised he was not given the right to refuse anybody based on National Security, after the example of the federal government in the USA!!! After all, baking cakes for people who he believes should not even exist, let alone be in His country, what is next??? Baking cakes for Asian people, or Black people, or God forbid Yankees??? Where Oh where will this stop???

      1. James says:

        Doing business w/ any one… Asian, Black, Yankees or ??? If a woman refuses to date (interact with) a man of different color or origin. Thats all being a discriminating person. Its the business owner that could be able to choose who they do business with. NOT an ego that claims “I want ~ You give”. Dis-like the company? The Co refuse to give service how the customer likes? Take your business down the street. Was gonna hire a contractor. He chose to run a red light to get to the interview on time. Shall we admit we picked a competitor to do the job because of his recklessness?

        1. Brad says:

          Question: Is this topic different then someone who truly has religious believes that people of different colors should not mix. If the couple were a man and a women but one black and another white would you the same outcome have happened?

      2. Donna says:

        People Can Not Choose Their Race. This can not be compared to the choice if your sexual partner………

        1. Terri says:

          Sorry but your argument does not stand… if you say being gay is a choice (which being gay is not a choice), then who you marry is a choice. If race is the issue, they chose outside of their race. You choose who you marry, whether same or different sex, same or different race. One does not choose their race or sexual preference.

    2. Brenda says:

      People who are outraged by this can express themselves by avoiding this bakery. He’ll have to close his doors if he has no customers.

      1. Reverand Raymond Smith says:

        Agreed. Simply boycott his business.

      2. Carl Elfstrom says:

        Why do some people think they always have to be totally honest and open about everything they do. Sometimes it can be totally self-defeating. So buy a cake with a man and woman’s name on it, take it home, wipe off the names, squirt some icing on in the names of the two men who are getting married, and the problem is solved. There are a lot of prejudiced people in this world who we have to do business with. Nothing is going to change them, so why egg them on ? Be yourself when and where it’s acceptable, and elsewhere put on a good show.

  2. Katelynne Victoria Shouse says:

    Fire up the ol’ discrimination machine cause BIG HATE is back in town…….every two but packer wood redneck and Evangelical child molester will be singing this song from now until we all die!

    1. Jolene says:

      Like all the Liberal minded hate towards Conservative minded……

      1. p. woodard says:

        Who said he’s a liberal? And who said conservatives are hated? That’s YOU saying it and another conspiracy theory you people tend to throw out there all of the time, blaming political parties for nothing, other than to satisfy your pee brain. Look around. It’s the conservatives doing all of the wrong, and being racist, and killing people of color, calling them names for no reason, not the liberals. And since this has nothing to do with either party, why would you bring THAT up? It’s about religious beliefs, something conservative clearly have no conscience about, other than to blatantly say that they are “the party of family values”, which we ALL KNOW is a lie. Just stick to the script and have a nice day.

        1. John Owens says:

          I’ll just leave this here:

          “The ruling explains that the Court chose to side with Phillips because there was clear evidence that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (the body which initially ruled against him) was biased against the baker based on his Christian beliefs – NOT because the law gives religious people the right to discriminate against others.”

          Notice it says, “the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (the body which initially ruled against him) was biased against the baker based on his Christian beliefs”.

          There’s your “conspiracy theory’. People should stop trying to use that lame label to silence dissenting opinion. If anything, your own criticisms of conservatives are paranoid, i.e., “It’s the conservatives doing all of the wrong, and being racist, and killing people of color, calling them names for no reason, not the liberals.” Sounds very one-sided and paranoid, alarmist, and bigoted. You should check yourself before you criticize others. Just saying.

          1. John Owens says:

            Katelynn sounds slightly unhinged, as well. Just an observation.

        2. Jim says:

          Before you start talking about conservatives doing all the wrong and being racist and such my friend you should check your history to see which party backed minorities and which party was the opposition to giving voting and equal rights not to mention going back to slavery. It has been the Republican party that has backed minorities not the democrats. That said a bartender can refuse to serve someone HE thinks has had to much to drink. I think that if someone truly feels it is against his religion then so be it. Not saying its right but like a few posts her said. If you disagree with the baker find another baker. He has the right to believe what he does as the Gay couples has the right to believe what they do.

          1. John Owens says:

            I concur, Jim.

          2. Carl Elfstrom says:

            And don’t forget that the man who wrote The Emancipation Proclamation that freed the slaves was a Republican.

          3. Jason Bender says:

            The “republicans are the party that freed the slaves” meme is intellectually dishonest. Back then the Republicans were the liberals of their day, during the civil rights act era the parties switched their left / right orientations after the “dixie democrats” were kicked out of the party…

    2. Atatakai says:

      I still like the idea that a homosexual baker can refuse service to Trump supporters! Hilarious idea. This is how ridiculous this whole argument is.

      They claim it is not discrimination, however, if you sell a product to one group, by law, you must sell that same concept of a product to another group.

      1. Brad says:

        Why would a gay person want to refuse service to a Trump supporter? My husband and I both voted for Trump. He has been pro-gay longer then Hillary and at least Trump didn’t have a mentor like Hillary that was a known clan member. Of course sweep that Sen. Bird right under his sheets I guess.

        1. Willy34 says:

          Brad, you are spreading fake news about Hillary being a clan member. But since you are a trumpeter that is to be expected from a neo-nazi. Heil Trump! 😂😩

          1. John Owens says:

            Yeah, Willy. Your comments aren’t fake news at all.

  3. BethKCZ says:

    This could go all sorts of ways. For instance, single mothers, whether they are single as they are never married, divorced, or widowed, a business (for instance, a bakery) could refuse her service – including a birthday cake for a child – because “her lifestyle” violated the baker’s morality. Or, someone refusing service to a disabled person because their religion teaches that those with disabilities are being punished by God, and therefore they should be shunned.

    You cannot force a baker or anyone to provide a product or service which they do not provide. A Muslim baker would not have to decorate the cake with bacon unless they put bacon on things, any more than a plumbing shop needs to provide you with a cake. That is not a product or service the shop offers.

  4. Louie Goad says:

    When it goes to the supreme court? IT IS A CAKE? How extreme we have become? They must have known this Baker? They chose to make a supreme court case out of it? Did they not ask friends and family for suggestions?
    I refuse to do such weddings. I would not refuse to do the cake if it was my business. Government involved in every lifes event?
    From birth to death, Government! That is why the little ships left England and settled in a far land. To escape total government control. Which in 2018 we are so willing to surrender all to the whims of government.

    1. Larry says:

      Nicely said.

    2. Jason D Bender says:

      yeah, to escape a govt. that was burning people like them at the stake – not the same thing as what we are talking about!

  5. Joe says:

    I have nothing against gays Christians or bakers. I do not like troublemakers.
    If it was a murder then turn the other cheek would not be an option.
    If someone refuses to bake a cake just go to another bakery

    1. Jolene says:

      Going to a different bakery would require them to problem solve on a mature level. Easier to complain and get attention than accept another person’s opposing belief.

      1. Reverand Raymond Smith says:

        Very well said!

      2. P`tar (@IamPtar) says:

        They did. They also reported this baker to the authorities for breaking state law. That question has not been resolved. This issue will be back.

      3. Carl Elfstrom says:

        Also, how hard is it to bake a cake ? Haven’t they heard of cake mix ? Personally, I like Betty Crocker’s and Duncan Hines a lot better than any cake from a bakery I’ve ever eaten.

    2. John Owens says:

      Joe, you and Jolene are correct.

    3. FloydFreedom says:

      Should blacks be required to go to a different hotel, based on an owner’s “religious” beliefs?

      1. James says:

        Required, racism, forced are all pretty pushy words. Gay, black, discrimination are as well But what about the other side. Because I just don’t want to be forced to do anything I don’t want to do! What about that side. And for any reason. I would have simply said no. No reason. Just no. It’s your freedom to do the same. Not serve anyone with your talents or skills. America was the land of the free until the communist hooked the left like a fish. Now it’s everyone is equal at everything at once unless we say you aren’t.. Then you have to do as we say. Sounds like freedom right there! Lol, too much self identity going on. If some one won’t serve you, don’t give them your hard earned money because they didn’t earn it. Now that’s freedom!

      2. John Owens says:

        Depends on their ages now, I guess, since black college students want to exclude others from some functions. They are becoming self-segregating.

    4. Brad says:

      Plenty of gays have been murdered but I believe anyone doing business has a right to refuse service. At least the baker was honest with the gay couple. I mean he could have baked it and spit in it. So much respect for the baker in this case. There is the question here that might need to be worked out… how long before gay people will be treated just like anyone else? It is not something that government can fix. Look at how many people have and still do die to make it so people of all colors can sit at the counter, go to school together ect ect. If these were easy issues we would have solved them by now. At least we are all talking about the issues which is a great start to understanding each other which I hope will lead to peace, understanding and even friendship.

  6. Jolene says:

    Put up a We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason. Private businesses have the right to do just that. Part of the reason this once great country is a joke now is due to everyone think THEIR rights are the only ones to count. No respect for us people who follow our own ideals instead of bowing down to the Liberals. Suck it up buttercups because not everyone wants to be part of your mental case Liberal ideas. That being said….I will officiate any wedding for anyone who can pay my fees.

    1. FloydFreedom says:

      They used to do that in the south, but the signs said “WHITES ONLY”. And, just for the record, any business open to the public does NOT have the “right to refuse service to anyone for any reason”. Ever heard of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

      1. Larry says:

        Maybe the baker was just being honest. People go to him for his creativity. He said he can’t because of his religious beliefs. Another words the cake would have been plain, lacking his inspired creativity. Creativity is not a switch. His creativity works on male female cakes. Not male to male cakes.

        1. Everyone has gone mad. says:

          Creativity comes from inspiration. Inspiration comes from spirit. Spirit comes from God. His creativity is his gift from Spirit and should be used in accordance with his beliefs.

  7. Stephanie Willey says:

    The court simply said that while LGBT people have rights, assumingly the same rights as every other American, it’s still OK to discriminate against them based on the business owners religious beliefs.
    As an American consumer and shopper I would appreciate it if EVERY business clearly posts in large letters right on their front door whether they are an inclusive establishment or a business that chooses who they do business based upon their religious beliefs. As a consumer I choose to not spend my money in business’s that practice bigotry of any kind.

    1. Rev Wayne Stevens says:

      That’s a little known point I guess in this country these days once rights can go both ways if you’re against something you should also be able to before something this country was based in one point. I feel separation of church and state that’s what I actually made this country great

    2. John Owens says:

      You choosing not to spend money there is another kind of discrimination, but no one would sue you for it. Just saying.

      1. Stephanie Willey says:

        John Owens, you’re correct. My personal choice to not spend my money in business’s that would discriminate against me or the people I care about is, in fact a form of quid pro quo discrimination. As you choose to discriminate against me or my deeply held personal interests or beliefs, I choose to discriminate against you by my economic decision to shop somewhere else. This is the basis of the economic boycott that is a time tested popular socio-economic and political tool of society. Consider the boycott of Target for their LGBT support or Nordstrum for dropping Ivanka Trumps clothing lines.

        1. John Owens says:

          Exactly. I vote with my income, and discriminate with it as well, by choosing where to spend it.. As a biker, I will not patronize any business that posts a sign saying we cannot wear our cuts there, even if I am in my Sabbath dress clothes. Neither will any other self-respecting biker. If they discriminate against my sub-culture, my sub-culture retaliates by discriminating against them. Of course, we don’t just open a law-suit and contact the newspapers about it. That would be undignified.

          I think the gay couple in the lawsuit should have just boycotted that bakery and invited their friends and supporters to do the same. If I alone boycott Walmart, it would not know the difference, but it would lose several thousand dollars a year. If I convinced 100 others to do the same, it would lose several hundred thousand dollars a year, and if 1000 of us did, well, you get the pattern.

  8. James says:

    A private business is private. They should be able to only include who ever they want in their store, or refuse anyone they choose Just like hiring and firing. Privately own business are the root of this country and capitalism. Don’t like e it, then don’t spend your money there. Easy enough. I’m happy we are getting through the crybaby stage, or are we?

    1. janice Ellery says:

      Private companies can serve or not serve whomever they want. However, this would be different for public institutions or agencies that contract with private agencies. The public has a right to boycott or protest businesses. By setting a precedent that a private business can’t refuse, it might then set the stage for churches to be forced to perform marriages they don’t approve of. There has to be a balance of rights; one side can’t dictate everything.

    2. FloydFreedom says:

      James and Janice – You two are ill informed. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. That applies to all businesses open to the public.

      1. Tom says:

        Floyd…i agree…discrimination is wrong, regardless of whether it is based on sexual orientation, or anything else…religion should not be the basis for selecting customers…that is just the slippery slope to an equivalent of the Old South…if you want to deal with the public, then you must deal with all of it…if you do not like that, go into a different type of business…Peace…Tom

      2. Carl Elfstrom says:

        You didn’t mention sexual orientation Floyd, and it didn’t cover that.

  9. Robert says:

    bet if it had been a Muslim cake maker there would not have been a word said! it was obviously a attempt to make Christians look bad despite what that belief system teaches. but it is a double edged sword, and cuts both ways, just because you do not believe in someones belief system does not mean others are squired to believe in yours!

  10. P WOODARD says:

    I don’t know what his religion is, but it’s up to God to judge, regardless of religion. But since the courts found it necessary to side with the baker, and their decision left it open to many questions to be answered from many scenarios, it’s difficult to see how this could play out for a majority in the future. I sincerely wish ALL of them luck.

  11. Canadian Yankee says:

    When I walk into a store I do not expect a litmus test as to my beliefs, but rather service for the money I offer. Can you imagine someone in the dead of night deciding that because one wears a Yamaha that the Arab attendant does not sell him gas. I thought we had got over this nonsense with the civil rights sit-ins of the 1960s. But reading many of the comments above just prove to me that bigotry is alive and well. Sad

    1. Dark Gray says:

      I think the word you’re looking for is yarmulke. Yamaha is a brand of motorcycle, which would be difficult to wear. 🙂

    2. FloydFreedom says:

      Yeah, a lot of these comments are sickening and clearly posted by ill informed individuals.

  12. John Owens says:

    I’d just like to comment–

    Humanity has been trying to establish a perfect society for thousands of years, and has yet to succeed ONCE. If it had succeeded ONCE, we would all be citizens of that perfect society now, since it would have drawn, outlasted, or consumed all others. The major problem that I see with trying to construct a perfect human society (Utopia), is that we are dealing with humans. We can try to change the rules of society, behavior, law, but one thing we cannot change is the human nature of others, no matter how hard we try. With much struggle and effort, we might manage to change our own, but we cannot change anyone else’s, much less a whole society’s.

    I am sorry we are somehow unable to just live and let live. Truly. If we could, none of this would be in discussion.

    1. Tom says:

      John…what you said is basically true…however, the point of this illusion of a “world” is the resolution of karma; not the duplication of Heaven/God…on a temporal level, the issue is how we all treat each other, which should be with love, caring and compassion, which is impossible to accomplish while being allied to a religion, race, sex, etc…that is why i maintain that religion is inherently divisive, and not simply loving and compassionate…religion makes people choose, when choices cause only harm…each person can only act for him or herself…the idea is to act loving and compassionate, regardless of the beliefs of those with whom you interact…there are no chosen people, religions, races, etc…Peace…Tom

  13. Tom Jaynes says:

    Simple solution to this issue in states that have anti-discrimination legislation: Any business that wants to be exempt based on their religious beliefs must do the following.
    Post a sign at the door, register, on sales checks, business cards and all advertising both print and electronic that says the following:
    “This business is opened and operated by persons with deeply held and personal religious beliefs. Based on those beliefs we reserve the right not to serve persons (name the group you object to). We regret any inconvenience this may cause said groups and request that they take their patronage elsewhere.”
    This way everyone who enters knows in advance whether or not they will be welcomed and whether or not to give them their business. There will be no need for anyone to feel embarrassed if they have to go through being turned away. In other words, let the free market decide who they will do business with, not the business decide who they will serve.

    1. FloydFreedom says:

      I get your point, but in some areas of our country that would effectively deny certain services to whole groups of people. It wasn’t that long ago that blacks were limited in where they could eat, sleep, and travel; in many peoples’ minds, all justified by religion.

      1. Tom Jaynes says:

        I agree with you, but my point is that this sign will dissuade people from even entering. Believe me, there will be a sign on a similar store within a block that says “We are opened and operated by persons with deeply held religious beliefs and based on those beliefs we will serve EVERYONE. Please enter and be made to feel welcomed.”

  14. Gerald (Jerry) Gay says:

    We are ALL children of God. We ALL have male and female aspects because of our parents. It is THE TIME to see beyond religion and see God is our name for Universal Consciousness. ALL
    life forms are on this earth to honor divine reality. Let’s get beyond religious guilt and LOVE our neighbors and our everyday reality. Remember… religions are simply the politics of spirituality.
    Welcome OUR Second Coming when we see CHRIST is within every soul. This was the true message that Jesus was teaching. He came to be HIS best example and encourage others to see and be their best Christ too. NOW we must believe Our Divine Essence of Life lives in every life form and generate THE NEW WORLD ORDER – WE ALL LIVE LIFE WITH LOVE NOW!

  15. Maurice Slaunwhite says:

    Any Pastor Priest And Missionary or even the pope has the right to say no when it comes to services for same sex Marriages. The Lord Thy God says no man shall lay with another man. This is Biblical. God bless you all and be right with God. Get in touch with Donnie Mcclurkin who use to be gay and is no more and now is a full Pastor of the Lord and a Good One. I urge all gay people to get in touch With Donnie Mcclurkin to get in touch with this man you will not regret it.God bless you everyone.

    1. Lori Mongillo says:

      The bible says a lot of things. It was NOT written by God, it was written by men who were trying to make sense of their spirituality. This doesn’t really seem that much about God. It’s more a statement of rejection. If a person opens a business to the public, who exactly is the public? Aren’t we ALL the public? Aren’t we all “Children of God”? Doesn’t God love ALL people? From what I understand Jesus served everyone who can to him, with love. I can’t remember any passages that said he rejected someone. Maybe I missed something. He even assisted lepers, didn’t he? It’s been awhile since I’ve been into Christianity, but I seem to recall this kind of stuff.

    2. Carl Elfstrom says:

      Many sex acts can be engaged in without laying with another person of iether gender. So that biblical passage was only referring to some homosexual acts, not all of them. And the god of the Christians would never tell anyone to not get down on his knees.

  16. Sandra Lent says:

    His business. His choice as to who he serves.

    1. FloydFreedom says:

      No! Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlaws discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. Remember when blacks couldn’t enter a white owned businesses?

      1. Roger Thunderhands Gilbert says:

        Yeah but how do they prove you are discriminating or refusing service on that criteria? What if I owned a restaurant and some person came in that was dirty smelly and obnoxious? What if they were of some ethnic origin? Enough of all this politically correct BS. A person who owns a business should have the right to refuse service without being punished.That person has two feet and can walk to another place to get served. It would be a matter of not saying why your refusing service, just that you are. No I am not racist but I am sick of justice warriors and the government telling me what I can or cannot do!

      2. Herbmeister says:

        In that particular document, “sex” refers to a person’s gender, not to that person’s sexual preferences.

        This whole mess is a classic case of in-your-face politics. Ask yourself this:. Knowing how the baker felt about gays, would you really want your friends as well as yourself eating anything prepared by him? Common sense would have me looking for a different baker…real quick!

      3. Jim says:

        The Civil Rights act of 1964 did not have anything to do with the gay community. In 1964 most gays were in the closet. the sex was you could not discriminate against a female. It does not say anything about a lifestyle.

  17. Amber L Fry says:

    A private business, which his is, has a right to decide who to serve and who not to. I’m not terribly surprised by this decision. However it is a show of bigotry that will make a lot of people not want anything to do with him or his business. Word will get around. Protests are also a human right and I can see that as a possibility at his storefront if this gets out through the political hoopla circulating these days.

  18. Mary Krantz says:

    If God created us all, then God loves us all. Bring a Christian means to be a loving Soul. After all the baker is going against his religious teachings. Love guy neighbor as thyself.
    And don’t tell me Gays can go straight and that they choose to be gay. Could he, the baker, become gay? Of course not, so don’t say a gay person can become straight. They were born that way. Why do we condemn them when God created them as they are?

  19. Lt Bil Drat says:

    This is a great, albeit, not unexpected win in the realm of free speech and religious freedoms. Nobody should be surprised at the decision. The only dissensions were from two extreme left winger justices.

  20. Steve says:

    Everyone is crying about the LGBTQIA rights… but what about the rights of the baker? Why is it discrimination to decline to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, but not discrimination to decline to respect the Christian’s rights? It’s a double standard and the hypocrisy abounds in the gay community. I’m thankful that the courts upheld freedoms and didn’t bow to the societal pressures.

    1. Lydia says:

      I agree with you Steve, it seems the Christians are being discriminated against as well these days. Christians can be ridiculed and nothing is done against that. Definitely a double standard. People are encouraged to accept and be open to other ideas and embrace those, but the tolerance seems to dissapear when it comes to accepting the fact that some Christians have other ideas. Then we will sue them. Having said that, I believe there is a passage in the Bible encouraging believers to live according to the laws of the country. If the law of the country states one cannot refuse a customer based on religious beliefs, than the cake has to be baked. It would be un-Christian to go against this passage in the Bible. At the same time, it is wrong to sue somebody for everything they have because they live their life according to different beliefs. I can’t stand the way some Muslim countries and the people from these countries treat their women. I think it is disgusting, evil and wrong. Does that mean though that if I walk in a Muslim store and the male owner refuses to shake my hand if I demand he should to close a deal because I am a woman, that I can sue him and his store because I feel discriminated against? Isn’t that the same principal? I would never do that, because I respect the fact that he may not want to shake a woman’s hand, even thought I may find that strange or even offensive. I guess that that can happen if I choose to go to a store like that. I could simply go to a different store and just never go there again.

  21. Mike says:

    I can’t help but wonder how many second or third marriages he’s refused to make a cake for. How many single parents. How many adulterers and fornicators and people who don’t worship on the Sabbath. Claiming “sincerely held religious beliefs” to discriminate against one particular group of people is not sincere. It’s bigotry, particularly when the person he claims to follow regularly hung out with the very same people his supposed followers today love to shun and ridicule and discriminate against.

    Sure, as a private business he has the right to refuse service. But using his so-called faith to discriminate is a cop-out. Baking a cake would support marriage equality? I mean… the abomination of gay marriage……. Using this same quasi-logic we should hold every “Christian” gun store owner responsible for any murders committed with the guns they sell. Every “Christian” motel owner is culpable in every case of adultery and fornication in their establishment. Using a claim of religion when you don’t practice it at any other time is just an excuse for bigotry.

    1. Jim says:

      How do you know he does not practice his religion any other time. Your point about the gun store owner makes no sense nor does the motel owner comments. The baker just said that he does not believe in gay marriage, Therefore he could not bake them the cake. I don’t see how a Christian gun store owner relates to this nor the motel owner. Could you elaborate.

  22. Oh Mo says:

    OK, can anyone tell me how providing a cake as a business service to a gay couple violates anybody else’s right to worship as they please? Just because the old testament opposes “gayness”, baking them a cake does not stop the baker from going to church, doing good deeds in god’s name, or believing any myth he wants to believe. It doesn’t! If this guy is such a good christian, why is he providing services to murderers, thieves, non-christians? Why isn’t he out their stoning adulterers? This baker, and those who support him, just want to be mean and hateful. When they’ve driven all gays underground again, guess who they’re coming after.

    1. FloydFreedom says:

      A bit bewildering, isn’t it? I find appalling many of these comments. This is the same logic the south used to discriminate against blacks and creating white only establishments

      1. Lori Mongillo says:

        I agree with you, FloydFreedom. Discrimination was and still is alive and well in the south as well as everywhere else.Though it’s not always out in the open to be identified.
        I must say that, as a woman, I’m glad I live in these times. Freedom comes slowly, but it does break through the barriers when people have had enough. Things can get very inflamed as to who’s rights are right, but somehow progress has been made in so many areas. This ruling won’t be the end of it. It’s another beginning. It will go through the unpleasant obstacles and the injustices will be corrected.

      2. Christian says:

        Denying people freedom of actions is what created Slavery.

        This ruling affirms FREE WILL,
        in the context of 1st Amendment Self Expression.

        NO ONE CAN FORCE YOU
        TO BE THEIR SLAVE.

        You decide for yourself what work you shall do.

        Threats of harm or punishment
        Shall Not be used against you to
        enslave you.

        Free Will is the foundation
        of ALL Natural God Given Rights outlined and protected by the Bill of Rights.

        Free Will is also a founding principle of FAITH, that you will decide for yourself if you want to love your God or discard him/her/it. Your Choice.

        OUR BILL OF RIGHTS:

        You can say and believe what you want to.

        You can defend your life from harm.

        You have a right to private property.

        You have the Right to be left alone.

        Without a Warrant, no one shall tresspass on your property, your home, or your communications.

        You have the right to NOT be Tortured until you confess against yourself.

        Everything is to protect your
        Right to Live
        Right to Freedom & Liberty
        Right to seek Happiness.

        Our Founder’s big mistake in forming the Union was to allow Slavery, and that was later removed by President Lincoln.
        Native peoples suffered far too much too.

    2. Steve says:

      When was the last time you heard of someone ordering a cake to celebrate a murder or a robbery? Yeah, that’s what I thought. Your logic doesn’t add up – sorry. Nice try though 🤣😂

    3. Steve says:

      If you were a baker, would you make a cake for someone with a swastika on it? If not then you’re a hypocrite.

  23. Reverend Robert says:

    I believe terrorists hold these same “sincerely held religious beliefs” and perform dispicable acts in the name of their religion. Any religious belief that does not embrace humanity with love and Forgiveness is radically warped, whether you shoulder a RPG or a hold a frosting knife.

  24. Michael says:

    I’m bisexual, and I’m all for equal rights. But that means for EVERYBODY, not just a protected minority. He wasn’t denying them general service or refusing to sell them pre-baked items; he was refusing to provide an artistic service that disagrees with his personal convictions. It’s the same as if somebody came into his shop and asked him to make them a cake with a swastika or a pentagram on it.

    The law can’t force him to express things that go against his beliefs; this is a freedom of expression and freedom of religion case, not a discrimination case. He can’t legally be compelled to express views that are not his own and that he doesn’t agree with.

    I’ve been denied services on those bases. When I was into Wicca, I went to a banner shop and asked them to print me up a banner with a pentagram on it. They refused, on the basis that they were Christians. I respected them more for refusing me service than if they would have done it. I’ve been to other shops with similar types of requests that were not honored due to the religious convictions of the owner. It’s their right to do that, and as a business man, I absolutely respect that.

    There are things I would not do, for example, as a musician. I would not write a song promoting messages I don’t agree with, for any amount of money. I would not allow my music to be licensed for use in such works, or in any other way contribute to the creation and distribution of such works. Neither would I allow my music to be used in the promotion of a religious, political or social movement that I do not subscribe to. As an e-merchant, I won’t sell products promoting ideas I don’t agree with, and nobody can make me. The government cannot compel me to do any of those things, just like it can’t compel this baker to decorate a cake with words or images identifying it as a gay wedding cake.

    Likewise, the government can’t compel clergy to officiate gay weddings if they disagree with it on religious grounds, or any other type, for that matter. A Christian minister can’t be compelled to officiate a Hindu, Atheist or Satanist wedding, a Rabbi can’t be compelled to officiate a Christian wedding, etc.

    1. Jim says:

      Well said Michael. What if he was a painter and they asked him to paint a wedding picture for them. Does he have the right to say No. I think he should. Cooking and baking is an art and if he truly feels that this goes against his religion then so be it. He did not harm them in any way just refused to bake a cake.

    2. Lydia says:

      Well said Michael, I couldn’t agree more!

  25. FloydFreedom says:

    Actually, if you believe the gay couple involved, the baker refused them all service, once he found out they were gay.

  26. Rev J says:

    No one in America can or should be forced to go against their truly, deeply held religious beliefs unless they are in any way harming other non believers of your faith. In our Christian faith we see murder as a mortal sin against God. In our societal laws we punish murders. Thus we see the abortion – prolife battle that still rages on. There are those who feel that life is not a God given miracle, the non religious, and their are those who feel, the true Christians, the followers of Christ, that it is a murder and a mortal sin against God. So the secular law settles the matter without open warfare between the two groups. In the case of the cake baker one must ask what is the goal here. Certainly there are bakeries that would be happy to fulfill your order for the almighty dollar and could care less about any religious conflict. Is this not so? Am I lying here? Based upon that then if one chooses not to make a cake for anybody because it is against their religion, ie: being gay and practicing that life style is a sin against God, then why not just go to a bakery that would fulfill this order without fanfare? Ahhhhh! Now we see the real intent of the customer here. It has nothing to do with the cake or being gay. It is to force a deeply religious individual to bow down to the golden calf, so to speak, and make this baker sin against his/her God. It is not than this is goal? They gay customer wishes only to force a Christian believer to sin. This is the current state of affairs. It has been foretold by God that this time period we live in is for the devil to capture as many souls as satan can. So the trick here is to use the power of the state to force Christians to sin against their God. Have I spelled it out correctly? Jesus has told us that; Ye shall know them by their fruits”. Jesus was talking about knowing who was a Christian and who was not. Who is a God follower and who was not. If there was no other cake maker that would comply with this gay couple’s demands then just maybe there would be a need for secular involvement. But then the baker, if truly committed to Christ and God’s teachings, would simply close up shop and thereby holding his/her true belief inviolate of any such order to produce a cake that makes them sin against their God or Christ, God’s Son. Occam’s razor is always the best answer to such questions. The more complex we make some thing, the more complex and probably wrong the explanation. Remember this principle folks, K.I.S.S. or Keep It Simple Stupid.

    1. FloydFreedom says:

      How is baking a cake a sin?

      1. Steve says:

        @FloydFreedom

        I think you missed the point.

    2. SARA RAWLINS says:

      You do know that Jesus was a Jew. There were no Christians during his time here on Earth, right? In fact, there were several “Messiahs” during his time going around preaching, As someone said and I can’t remember who said it, he just had a better PR person.

      1. Christian says:

        Jesus was not a Jew.

        Jesus was EARTH’s second Christian, since he believed in Himself.

        The First Christian on Earth is
        Mother MARY, who stands Living and Alive with GOD Almighty.

        One of the few Humans to be wholey and physically transported into the Heaven dimension.

        1. Carl Elfstrom says:

          Men had to form the christian religion before anyone could become a christian. Jesus was not a christian and neither am I, even though I believe in him. He just happens to be one of my Wiccan gods. Blessed be!

  27. Tim Haines says:

    The bakery did not discriminate against anyone: had the gay client asked for a cake for a straight wedding, the baker would have been quite happy to bake it; had a straight person asked him to bake a gay wedding cake, he would have refused; therefore no discrimination against gay people, just discrimination against a cake. Do cakes have equal rights now?

  28. P.R> Tooke says:

    We formed this country with the specific philosophy of separating church from state. It is against the law to discriminate based on sexual preference, religious belief, etc. It is clearly against the law. How does that factor into the baker’s private beliefs whether that be religious or his simple prejudices? He can practice his freedom of religion all he wants, as long as it does not interfere with THE LAW.

    1. ProtectLives says:

      Slavery is illegal.

      No one can use force,
      physical harm, or threat of harm to enslave you to produce works.

      If you don’t want to work on Sundays, no one can force you to do work on your holy days.

      Slavery is Illegal.

      This rolls into Contract Laws too,
      as you can not FORCE anyone to sign a contract.

      Without Willful consent, a signature at gunpoint is invalid.

      A contract signed under duress
      is not valid from the start.

      The premeditated willful consent of the individual free will person is an important factor in many court decisions.

  29. SARA RAWLINS says:

    What this Gay couple should have done was buy the cake of their choice and don’t tell the baker what special occasion it is was for, it’s none of his business. Ask nothing to be put on it other than the colors of their wedding party (which again the couple did not have to give a reason or explanation for those colors, and as far as the baker knew it could have been for one of their mothers’ birthday) and then when the cake is on display at the wedding reception, put their special cake topper on it and a place card saying who baked their cake. I know that sounds sneaky, but it would save a lot of heart-ache and kind of a win-win situation for everyone. Then see if the baker takes them to court, I’m sure even the Supreme Court would laugh that one right out the courtroom door. It’s a matter of you paid for the service or goods and what you do with them, well that’s your business not the creator of the goods because now he has been compensated and the transaction ends once he accepts the payment for his time and finished cake.

  30. sheryl clyde says:

    I take it no one reads the gospels any more matt 5 has the answer Christ said:
    40 And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. 41 If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. 42 Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

    Love for Enemies
    43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor[i] and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. 46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

    So by turning the couple away the “christian” baker ruined a perfect opportunity to show the love of Christ to them. Instead he got homophobic and fearful and turned them away brought the whole nation involved and caused LGBT’s everywhere one more reason to hate God.

  31. Bill Fox says:

    I believe that if you have a business license, you are obligated to obey the laws of the state and municipality that issues the license. If one gets down into the weeds on this particular case, it isn’t as blatant as not issuing a wedding license to a same sex couple, if same sex marriage is legal. I’m trained as a pharmacy technician but my moral values are against abortion and birth control. If the pharmacist instructs me to get RU486 or birth control pills for a customer, I’m obeying my employer which is also well covered in the Bible. I’m the employee, not the rule maker. I am also trained as a nursing assistant. I would not work for an abortion clinic because of my beliefs, even if it means not having a job. I’m not going to work at an abortion clinic and then expect them to give me jobs that don’t involve abortion.

  32. Jeff says:

    I’m glad the Supreme Court sided with the baker on this one. There are so many things to consider and one of those is the right to practice your religion. This was a religious decision not a civil rights issue. This suit was done out of spite, there were several bakers in the area that made cakes many of whom were willing to bake the cake but no, when they were refused service they wanted to make a point. They wanted to break anyone that disagreed with their sexual lifestyle. That’s the bottom line. It was spite and if we want to live as a nation we have to respect everyone, not just those that support our point of view.

  33. Father Fred says:

    Nobody should be forced to violate their religious principles. But the bigger issue is more people are looking to pick a fight. Had I been one of the couple I would have simply gone somewhere else. Reminds me of when a friend of mine and I went to a K of C hall on Friday night. In this small community the Catholics are very serious about the fish. Anyway, my friend wanted to start a scene because he didn’t WANT fish, and they refused to serve him a hamburger. I had to usher him out rather quickly, but the point is, why create a scene when someone’s religious views are counter to yours? Just go somewhere else. I’m sure Rabbi Schmitz would not be outraged at the Hamler ham festival.

  34. Judy says:

    A lot of conversation here about principles, boycotting, spite etc. Perhaps this is, instead, a conflict of Love, pure and simple, An artist in love with his life’s work and his religious faith. Not simply a reseller of goods. A loving couple in love with the matrimonial symbol of the cake being created by, in their minds, the best artist. Even with a lot of love, some things just don’t work out. The Supreme Court failed to decide anything, really. Let It Go – Move on.

  35. Randy K says:

    Either way you want to look at it. Most establishments I enter have a sign somewhere visable that states “MANAGEMENT RESERVES THE RIGHT TO REFUSE SERVICE TO ANYONE”.

    So, I don’t see what the problem is.

  36. Michelle Roberts says:

    If a person builds up his business then it’s his business and he has the right to refuse service to whoever he wants. What the gay couple wanted went against the business owners beliefs. He politely refused. He said he would not make a ‘wedding’ cake but any other cake he would gladly do provided it wasn’t vulgar. Why didn’t they go find another bakery? Instead they decided to play the ‘gay’ card and hollar discrimination. I think the supreme court chickened out. They should just make a decision not be so wishy washy.

  37. David Rediger says:

    The Civil Rights Act of 1964 only outlawed discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin, required equal access to public places and employment, and enforced desegregation of schools and the right to vote.

    It did not prohibit individual businesses from refusing to serve, manufacture, fabricate or allow entry into their establishment.

    It was tough enough to stand up to Jim Crow Laws and pass bold legislation for the time. But that was as far as they could push their luck. I do believe that the legislatures wanted people to voluntarily go past the letter of the law and practice the spirit behind it as Dr. King dreamt it could have been.

  38. Christian says:

    I would love a hickory smoked bacon cake with omlet frosting and golden hashbrowns body served atop a maple sausage disk, topped off with buttermilk pancake on top !

    Yummm.

    But what the court ruled was freedom of self expression 1st Amendment.

    No one is a SLAVE.

    No one shall be required by law under threat of force to produce works or suffer punishment.

    So you could also in a wide sense consider this an good ruling for combating Human Trafficking,
    as young people brought to USA as Sex Workers have the right to refuse service & seek more legal protection from those that prey upon them.

    SLAVERY is Banned in USA in ALL it’s Forms.

  39. James says:

    Can’t we all just get along.

    1. Carl Elfstrom says:

      I hope you’re joking, James.

  40. mike says:

    This is freedom as our founding fathers wanted it.

  41. Carl Elfstrom says:

    Our founding fathers are dead. You’re talking about the past. Now we do things the way we think they should be done.

Leave a Comment