Bakery refuses to bake cake for gay wedding

It is likely that this perspective will influence the way the Supreme Court decides any future cases. This breached Phillips' constitutional right to have his case considered fairly and neutrally. It was found that the Commission dealt with the case in a biased and unfair manner that was hostile to religion.

Jack Phillips refused to make a cake for a gay couple at his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado. Gay wedding cake cases in Australia would be resolved through state and federal anti-discrimination laws which protect LGBTI people. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court overturned the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's original decision that refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding was inconsistent with Colorado anti-discrimination laws.

That decision was upheld by the Colorado State Supreme Court. And what does the case mean for Australia, particularly with the upcoming release of the Ruddock religious freedom report? The Supreme Court will almost certainly end up hearing a similar case in the future, with an upcoming Washington florist's case being the most likely.

The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs. The second argument was that requiring a person to participate in the celebration of a same-sex wedding contrary to their religious beliefs violated the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion.

Baker Jack Phillips is congratulated after his Supreme Court victory. It decided that the way in which the Colorado Civil Rights Commission handled the case was unconstitutional. American state and federal laws prohibiting discrimination against same-sex couples remain in place.

AP: David Zalubowski. Phillips turned down the order, since he felt that designing such a cake would force him to share a message that contradicts his religious beliefs. (Reuters) - A Colorado baker who had won a narrow U.S. Supreme Court victory over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple on Thursday lost his appeal of a ruling in a separate.

The couple complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found that Masterpiece and Phillips breached Colorado laws prohibiting discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation. Justice Kennedy began his Masterpiece judgment by stating that, "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 Supreme Court's decision, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, was narrow, procedural and did not directly decide either of the two main arguments raised by Phillips. But does it really? The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled in favour of the baker in the world's most high-profile "gay wedding cake" case.

However narrow the judgment, some businesses — in the US or even in Australia — may wrongly think the decision allows bakers and others to lawfully refuse service to same-sex couples. Reuters: Rick Wilking. The Supreme Court was very clear that it was not deciding the question of whether a person with religious objections to same-sex marriage had a general right to refuse to serve gay customers.

A transgender woman contacted his bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, and asked for a cake celebrating her gender transition. The Supreme Court criticised the commission for reasons including that one commissioner labelled the use of religious beliefs to justify discrimination as "one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use", even comparing the situation to "slavery" and "the Holocaust".

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognising 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.

The US Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a baker in Colorado who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Further afield, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has recently heard arguments in a case where a baker in Northern Ireland refused to make a cake with a pro-marriage equality message on it.

The first was that requiring Phillips to exercise artistic talent in favour of same-sex marriage amounted to "compelled" speech, violating the First Amendment right to free speech. Phillips said "no" because it would be contrary to his religious beliefs to participate in a same-sex wedding.

He also noted that religious protections do not generally extend to business owners refusing to provide equal access to goods and services. Australia does have a constitutional protection of religious freedom based on the American free exercise clause, but this protection has largely been read down by Australian courts and applies only to the Federal Government.

Australia does not have an explicit constitutional protection of free speech like America does. No Australian "gay wedding cake" case has arisen since same-sex marriage became legal last year. Topic: Law, Crime and Justice. Despite this, public perception is often different to legal reality.