Supreme court case gay wedding cake
In narrow ruling, Supreme Court gives victory to baker who refused to build cake for gay wedding
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Supreme Court gave a amplify to advocates of religious freedom on Monday, decision that a Colorado baker cannot be forced to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, in a case that committed marriage equality and protection from discrimination.
But the notion was a narrow one, applying to the specific facts of this case only. It gave no hint as to how the court might settle future cases involving florists, bakers, photographers and other business owners who hold cited religious and free-speech objections when refusing to serve gay and woman loving woman customers in the awaken of the Supreme Court's same-sex marriage decision.
In the decision, the court said legal proceedings in Colorado had shown a hostility to the baker's religious views. Monday's ruling was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who also wrote the Supreme Court's gay marriage decision.
Similar cases are now working their way through the lower courts.
"These disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without und
Ashers 'gay cake' case: European court rules case inadmissible
However, the Rainbow Project, a Belfast-based gay rights campaign group, said the UK Supreme court decision had created legal uncertainty for LGBT people when accessing goods and services and Thursday's ECHR judgment had not resolved that uncertainty.
"The Rainbow Project affirms our fundamental belief in freedom of religion for all people, however this independence cannot be extrapolated into privately-owned business and used as a justification for discrimination," said its director John O'Doherty.
Fellow LGBT campaign organization Stonewall also said Thursday's ECHR verdict "leaves the door open for legal uncertainty across the UK and causes continued unease for our communities".
"Our thoughts are with Gareth Lee, who deserved more aid from the European courts after seven years of productive towards equality," said Stonewall's chief executive Nancy Kelley.
Mr Lee's lawyer, Ciaran Moynagh, said the ruling was a missed opportunity, and that Mr Lee was consider
You may recall the controversial "gay cake" case (Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd) that was heard by the Supreme Court in This is the case of the Christian bakery who refused to produce a cake with the message “support gay marriage” for a gay customer. The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has now unanimously decided that it would not reconsider the Supreme Court judgment on this case.
In brief, the proof of the case are as follows. Mr Lee, a same-sex attracted man, ordered a cake from Ashers Bakers, to mark the end of Aniti-homophobic week. The bakery refused on the grounds that it was a Christian business. Mr Lee brought a claim in the Belfast County Court claiming that the refusal was direct discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and religious belief or political view. The bakery argued that they had refused the order because they believed that providing the cake would have promoted the political campaign for same-sex marriage, which was against their Christian beliefs. They said they would have refused to supply a cake to a heterosexual or bise
In Masterpiece, the Bakery Wins the Battle but Loses the War
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a bakery that had refused to sell a wedding cake to a queer couple. It did so on grounds that are specific to this particular case and will acquire little to no applicability to future cases. The opinion is full of reaffirmations of our country’s longstanding rule that states can bar businesses that are open to the public from turning customers away because of who they are.
The case involves Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple who went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver in search of a cake for their wedding reception. When the bakery refused to sell Dave and Charlie a wedding cake because they’re lgbtq+, the couple sued under Colorado’s longstanding nondiscrimination commandment. The bakery claimed that the Constitution’s protections of free speech and liberty of religion gave it the right to discriminate and to override the state’s civil rights commandment. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against the bakery, and a declare appeals c