June 4, 2018
An important ruling came down today on the side for religious freedom. In a 7-2 decision the Supreme Court ruled in favor of baker, Jack Phillips, overruling a lower court on the grounds that he did not get the proper “neutral and respectful” consideration from a state commission in Colorado.
It all began in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception from Philips’ bakery the Masterpiece Bakery. Philips recalls that after a 20 second conversation he told the men “Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.” Phillips did offer to sell them any cake in his shop. He was only opposed to making a custom cake. It should also be noted that Philips also refuses to make Halloween -themed cakes, as well as anti-American, and anti-family themed cakes. Why did this couple seek out this religious conservative baker?
The men proceeded to file a complaint with the Colorado Civil rights Commission. The state commission ruled in favor of the gay couple, the appeals court upheld the decision.
Writing for the majority Justice Anthony M. Kennedy stated that the commission was hostile to the baker’s faith. Diann Rice, Colorado Civil Rights Commissioner actually equated Phillips’ refusal to make a cake to slavery and the holocaust.
However, although a win for Jack Phillips, and a victory for religious freedom, this was a narrowly focused decision. The main thrust of the decision was a rebuke of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Kennedy went on to write that …“ The courts precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his rights to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws.” “Still the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power” needs to occur where “religious hostility on the part of the state itself would not be a factor.”
This opinion did not rule on the broader issue of the legal right for a business to refuse service based on religious beliefs. The court has left open the possibility that future cases might be decided differently, where the state does not display religious animus. It was however, still a victory for religious freedom, and a rebuke to the Colorado state commission, and the intolerant couple who obviously have no respect for religious liberty.
