The case pits the religious freedom cases of Jack Phillips, who possesses Masterpiece Cakeshop, against the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, who say Phillips' activities add up to segregation. And that was despite a dissent from Trump's most recently appointed Justice Neil Gorsuch. So when gay marriage opponents came out of the woodwork, threatening to vote the all-Republican court off the bench if it didn't reconsider its decision - their argument being this was a great opportunity to restrict the effects of Obergefell - the Texas court took note.
If the Court were to rule in Phillips' favor, they would be ruling in favor of a constitutional right to discriminate based on religious exemptions, which would directly contradict previous decisions they've made. "I don't feel like we asked for a piece of art, or for him to make a statement, we simply asked him for a cake, and he denied that to us simply because of who we are".
Flash forward to 2012, when same sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two men walked into the bakery.
"The discussion was genuinely short", Philips recalled. "I went over and greeted them. We sat down at the work area where I had my wedding books open". The state has ordered him to either make cakes for gay weddings or stop making wedding cakes at all.
Kennedy later seemed to side with Phillips when he told a lawyer for the commission: "Tolerance is essential in a free society".
"The Bible says, 'In the beginning there was male and female, '" Phillips said. He offered to make some other heated products for the men. Liberty and equality are mutually reinforcing values, and both are weakened when they are placed at odds. Kennedy described comments made by one of the seven Colorado commissioners in the case as hostile to religion.
The Supreme Court is taking up the highly anticipated case of the Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
The Texas court basically found that while gay marriage is now the law of the land in all states, that doesn't necessarily entitle gay couples to the same benefits of marriage as hetero couples, particularly pointing to someone's ability to receive insurance through their partner's employment. It just restricted Phillips from oppressing potential clients by virtue of their sexual introduction.More news: Capcom officially announces Mega Man 11
More news: Trump Withdraws US From UN Migrant And Refugee Compact
More news: Robinho sentenced to nine years in prison for sexual assault
The justices left intact a June ruling by the Republican-dominated Texas Supreme Court that revived a lawsuit backed by a conservative group aimed at blocking Houston from offering such benefits. In the brief, Acting Solicitor General Jeffrey B. Wall argued Phillips' cakes equated to a form of expression and forcing him to create such an expression for an event that contradicted his religious beliefs was a violation of his First Amendment rights.
In the Kentucky case, although the business accepts and serves all customers, the messages the company is willing to print are "limited by the moral compass of its owners", and it refuses "any order that would endorse positions that conflict with the convictions of the ownership".
Early in a riveting argument at the high court Tuesday, Kennedy anxious that a ruling for baker Jack Phillips might allow stores to post signs that they "do not bake cakes for gay weddings". "It's about the privilege of gay individuals to get equivalent administration".
Something troubling just happened at the U.S. Supreme Court today.
The couple is being represented in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.
Cole said that whether a cake is a creative articulation isn't at issue. The appropriate response, Cole fights, is "no".
Twenty other states and the District of Columbia likewise expressly prohibit places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.