Gay Wedding Cake Case: 5 Things To Know About The SCOTUS Decision

WASHINGTON, DC – Here are five things you need to know about Monday's US Supreme Court ruling on Masterpiece Cakes vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Does the SCOTUS decision allow store owners to refuse to serve gay customers?

The SCOTUS 7-2 decision is narrow in focus, in that it addresses procedural irregularities by the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights ruling against Masterpiece Cakes, but does not take on whether the business discriminated against David Mullins and Charlie Craig because they were gay.

The ruling says the CCCR hearing "expressed hostility" to Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips's deeply held religious beliefs and his First Amendment expression of those in the form of his cake decorations.

Justice Anthony Kennedy's ruling said that the CCCR would be correct to rule against any vendor refusing to sell goods to LGBT customers "lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."

What does the ACLU say?

The argument that refusing to serve customers because of religious beliefs has been shot down before, the ACLU said.

In the 1960s, Piggie Park barbecue restaurant argued that its owner’s religious beliefs meant it could refuse to serve Black customers. In the 1970s and 1980s, schools claimed that they should be allowed to pay women less than men based on the belief that men should be the head of the household. Time and again, courts have recognized that religious views, no matter how deeply felt, don’t entitle any of us to discriminate. The same is true today.

"As a nation, we’ve already rejected the idea that businesses open to the public have a license to discriminate against people because of who they are," the ACLU tweeted.

How are Colorado politicians responding?

Republican legislators in Colorado proposed legislation to dismantle the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, arguing that it put unfair burdens on businesses. But majority Democrats voted down House Bill 1256.

“This ruling stands as a clear and humbling rebuke to all those...who took the position this last session that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission can do no wrong, and that it always acts within appropriate legal and constitutional boundaries. It clearly does not,” the Colorado GOP tweeted.

Republican Dave Williams tweeted that lawmakers needed to change the CCRC to ensure it "doesn’t harm people of faith again."

Colorado's Democrat legislators were discouraged at the ruling, but took heart in the fact that the decision did not specifically address shop owners' religious freedom to discriminate.

"It’s important to realize that this decision does not give license to business owners to discriminate against gay people," tweeted Rep. Leslie Herod. "In that sense, this is a victory."

It’s important to realize that this decision does not give license to business owners to discriminate against gay people. In that sense, this is a victory. The court merely set aside this one order based on the comments of a commissioner. It’s a very narrow decision. #coleg
— Leslie Herod (@leslieherod) June" class="redactor-linkify-object">https://twitter.com/lesliehero... 4, 2018

Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman issued the following statement:

Today the Supreme Court determined that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’s sincerely held religious beliefs in this particular case. Based on the statements of some Commissioners, the Court found that the proceedings did not honor the State’s solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.

At the same time, the opinion is narrow. The Court made its decision based on a specific set of facts and left open many legal questions. Unfortunately, those questions will have to be decided in future litigation.

The Court did make clear, however, that States like Colorado may continue to protect the LGBTQ community, reaffirming principles my office has consistently defended for the past six years. The general rule was, and remains, that the First Amendment does not allow business owners to deny members of the community equal access to goods and services. As the Court said, the right of gay people and couples to “exercise ... their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect.” The Court’s decision did nothing to undermine protections the Colorado General Assembly granted to the LGBTQ community under our Anti-Discrimination Act.

What did dissenting Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg say?

Ginsburg's dissent reasserted that the case was not about freedom of speech or expression, but discrimination.

"What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple ... Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it."

What are Supreme Court Watchers saying?

Supreme Court expert and SCOTUS blog author Amy Howe said the ruling did not give either side a clear victory.

"[The] majority decision left open the possibility that a future case could come out differently, particularly if the decisionmaker in the case considered religious objections neutrally and fairly," Howe wrote. "Other cases, the majority emphasized, 'must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing 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.'"

Related:

• Gay Wedding Cake Case: US Supreme Court Sides With CO Baker
  
• Supreme Court Hears Case Of Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple
  
• LGBT Wedding Cake Case Is About More Than Baked Goods
  
• Gay Marriage: CO Wedding Cake Bakery Gets DOJ help
  

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 05: Conservative Christian baker Jack Phillips (3rd L) waves to supporters as he walks out of the U.S. Supreme Court building after the court heard the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission December 5, 2017 in Washington, DC. Siting his religious beliefs, Phillips refused to sell a gay couple a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony in 2012, beginning a legal battle over freedom of speech and religion. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)