In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a cake for their wedding. 370 P. 3d, at 283. See also ante, at 5–7 (Gorsuch, J., concurring). 468 U. S. 288, 294 (1984). Brief amici curiae of Mark Regnerus, et al. (c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the 168. As the Court also explains, the only reason the Commission seemed to supply for its discrimination was that it found Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs “offensive.” Ibid. P20140069X, at 4. See supra, at 1. To suggest that cakes with words convey a message but cakes without words do not—all in order to excuse the bakers in Mr. Jack’s case while penalizing Mr. Phillips—is irrational. (Distributed), Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. Although the cake is eventually eaten, that is not its primary purpose. v. Tourism Co. of Puerto Rico, San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. v. U.S. Olympic Committee. filed. They also ruled that it did not go against the First Amendment. that people of their sexual orientation have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals”; and imply that their participation “merits celebration.” Id., at 574. In the latter cases, a customer named William Jack sought “cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text”; the bakers whom he approached refused to make them. 564 U. S. 552, 567 (2011). filed. on writ of certiorari to the court of appeals of colorado. Those bakers prevailed before the Colorado Civil Rights Division and Commission, while Phillips—who objected for religious reasons to baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple—did not. for leave to intervene DENIED. . Today’s decision respects these principles. He also requested that each cake be decorated with Biblical verses. filed. Phillips explained that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage, and also because Colorado (at that time) did not recognize same-sex marriages. Id., at 76. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) pursuant to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits, as relevant here, discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . v. Barnette, Then the government can prevail only if it satisfies strict scrutiny, showing that its restrictions on religion both serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored. First Amendment, as applied to the States through the [13] Masterpiece further believed the anti-discrimination law can be used to selectively discriminate against religion, as the Commission has allowed bakers to refuse to provide cakes with anti-same-sex marriage messages on them, even though the Commission said these refusals were appropriate due to the offensiveness of the messages and not on the basis of religion. Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. But it is also true that no bureaucratic judgment condemning a sincerely held religious belief as “irrational” or “offensive” will ever survive strict scrutiny under the evidence” that wedding cakes communicate a message. This could include discrimination of customers based on their sexual orientation, race, religion and/or disability. "[39], Kennedy's decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, but because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the free exercise of religion. MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., et al., PETITIONERS v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, et al. Record from the Court of Appeals of Colorado has been returned. That requirement, however, was not met here. But the Commission dismissed Phillips’ willingness to sell “birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,” App. Such results-driven reasoning is improper. These justifications are completely foreign to our free-speech jurisprudence. A few moments later, the commissioner restated the same position: “[I]f a businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the—the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.” Id., at 30. The owner said this decision violated his First Amendment rights, and he appealed. First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. First Amendment. Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. 460–463 (3d ed. 370 P. 3d, at 289. In view of these factors the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of Phillips’ religious beliefs. of Ed. In short, when the same level of generality is applied to both cases, it is no surprise that the bakers have to be treated the same. P20140070X, at 4; or displayed a message the baker “deemed as discriminatory, Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No.
Abide With Me, Easy Lover Meaning, Fa Trophy 2020, What Is The Massif Central Not Known For, Dance The Night Away, Yg Audition In Australia,