Click here to view full article at www.koaa.com
FILE – In this March 10, 2014, file photo, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips decorates a cake inside his store in Lakewood, Colo. COLORADO SPRINGS –
In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court Monday ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who declined to make a custom wedding a cake for a gay couple back in 2012. The couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, were married in Massachusetts but held a celebration with friends and relatives in Colorado when they returned. At the time, gay weddings were not legally permitted in Colorado.
They filed a complaint with Colorado Civil Rights Division against Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, claiming discrimination. The high court scolded the Commission for its hostility towards Phillips and his faith during those proceedings.
The ruling overturns previous lower court decisions against Phillips, but it specifically focused on his treatment by the State of Colorado, and not the question of whether businesses can refuse gay customers.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy called out comments by one Civil Rights Commissioner in particular as disparaging against Phillips religious beliefs. The commissioner had said that freedom of religion was used to justify slavery and the Holocaust.
"This sentiment 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," Kennedy wrote.
He concluded that the outcome of cases like these must "await further elaboration in the courts."
"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," he wrote.
Attorneys from both of parties told reporters the reason Phillips won is that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t give him a fair hearing."This process was openly hostile to Jack because of his religious viewpoint and that in and of itself was enough to render it unconstitutional under the free exercise clause," said Kristen Waggoner of the civil rights group Alliance Defending Freedom.James Esseks, Director of the American Civil […]