Supreme Court tosses ruling against bakers who refused cake for gay couple
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Supreme Court on Monday threw out a ruling against two Oregon bakers who refused to bake a wedding cake for a lesbian couple.
The couple, Melissa and Aaron Klein, cited religious beliefs as their reason for not providing services for a gay wedding. This touched off the latest in a series of such cases making headlines in recent years. During the court's last term, justices ruled in favor of a Colorado baker in a similar situation, stating that a state body demonstrated improper hostility toward the baker's religion in finding that he violated a state anti-discrimination law.
On Monday, the Supreme Court sent the Klein case back down to a lower court "for further consideration in light of" their Colorado decision.
The central disputes in the case -- which pits LGBT rights against religious freedom considerations -- have yet to be addressed by the Supreme Court.
A similar case involving Washington state florist Baronelle Stutzman previously was sent back so the state court could review its decision against Stutzman in light of the Colorado case. The Washington court upheld its decision, and the case is expected to go back before the Supreme Court once more.
The Kleins' case arose when Rachel Bowman-Cryer went to them in January 2013 to see about a wedding cake. When Aaron Klein asked for information, including the name of the groom, she told him there was none. Klein then said the bakery does not make cakes for gay weddings, court documents said.
Bowman-Cryer's mother, who was with her, said Klein quoted the Bible when explaining his decision.
The Kleins had to pay a $135,000 judgment to the couple for discriminating against them in violation of a state public accommodations statute. They ended up closing down their bakery.
The couple is represented by First Liberty, who celebrated the Supreme Court's decision as a win.
"This is a victory for Aaron and Melissa Klein and for religious liberty for all Americans," First Liberty president Kelly Shackelford said in a statement. "The Constitution protects speech, popular or not, from condemnation by the government. The message from the Court is clear, government hostility toward religious Americans will not be tolerated."
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Tags
Who is online
56 visitors
That's twice now that the state has shown hostility towards people with religious objections!
Ya know, and this is MY HUMBLE PERSONAL OPINION, if the LGBT "community" would shut up and quite demanding the equality they already receive under the Constitution, people would much more freely give them their space/"equality". Push it down my throat and I'm gonna fight it.
If that's your personal opinion, it's absolutely mine as well!
And what if you replaced that minority group with some other, then how does your comment sound?
Doesn't sound that reasonable to me. Sounds more like someone who might be bigoted against Native Americans and likely doesn't understand what they've had to go through over the last several hundred years.
Need to check your reading comprehension if you're gonna attempt to make comparisions regarding LGBT/Native Americans.
As a Native American, you know much, much better than that wild grab out the ass comment.
Which part of your comment did I misunderstand? Aren't Native Americans a "minority" in America, just like the lgtbq community? I'm certainly not saying that the lgtbq community has gone through all the same discrimination or suffered as much as the Native American community has, but they are both minorities who are rightly vocal about their desire to be treated with the same respect as any other law abiding American citizen. How would it be any different if the baker refused to make a cake for a Native American couple than for a gay or lesbian couple?
What religious grounds would they claim against Native Americans?
That was your real point wasn't it?
All minority groups need to fall in line against the white bogie man!
We got it!
Difference - HUGE differences.
My tribe signed 14 TREATIES with the U.S. government - all of which took away our lands and tried to replace our cultures/traditions/heritage with that of dominant society. The Treaties, according to the U.S. Constitution, are the "SUPREME LAW OF THE LAND" and, supposedly, if a treaty is signed, it is to be obeyed and adhered to by all involved - something you should be aware of.
The LGBT community, in my tribe, were/are considered special and had/have powers none of the other tribal members have/had. Our tribal LGBT community NEVER asked to be treated as special - it was an elders decision based on history/actions/precedents of the LGBT community, more specifically with the individual, not the whole LGBT community.
The non-Indian LGBT community is not covered under any treaty or special act of Congress - but they are wanting to be.
Not the same.
Your conservative religious belief is are not a cover for bigotry and discermination in a public business. You can do what you want in private and on your own time. The bakers and others opened a business voluntarily and by doing so they accepted that they must obey all relevant secular laws. Your religious beliefs are not and cannot be an exception to obeying secular law or the Constitution could not be enforced and would not have any power if you could exclude yourself from enforcement by citing a sincere religious belief to the contrary.
The fact that Jesus told his followers not to act in this manner seems to escape evangelicals. It is difficult for the courts to take your religious claim seriously when your own savior says that your actions are wrong. It isn't a religious belief because your own bible teaches followers to conduct themselves in a different manner. It is an obvious attempt to hide bigotry of LGBT and others behind the religious protections of the First Amendment.
.
Nor are your secular beliefs.
Just keep on showing the hate in handling what should be a simple matter of enforcing the law and you'll keep getting slammed by the SCOTUS.
The Supreme Court punted. They didnt want to deal with the case.
The Klein's were hit with massive fines and had to close their business. A $135,000 fine for not putting a certain inscription on a cake? They agreed to make a cake for everyone. Forcing people to say things they don't want to say may be another matter.
The reason the SCOTUS threw the case out is based on the states hateful overreach!
The reason it was tossed is what you fail to mention.
Which inaccuracy do you want to stick with?
That $135,000 is a MASSIVE fine?
The Klein's never turned down a particular inscription, nor would they have been 'forced' to make one.
They refused to make a standard wedding cake because there was no "groom" to be named, long before getting to the options of
flavor and decorations. I don't believe quoting scripture from the Bible, Torah or any other source as a reason for refusing service
is a valid commercial activity per the laws in any state. I could be wrong.
I don't believe "tossed" is the proper legal term. The article says it was returned to the lower court for review in lieu of the recent SCOTUS
Colorado baker case decision.
It is a massive fine
I don't believe quoting scripture from the Bible, Torah or any other source as a reason for refusing service
That's not the point here. This case falls into the same category as the Colorado case.
You make it a point with exaggerated statements like this -
Since 2013, they were fined once, and it was upheld twice, refused review by the Oregon Supreme Court and now the US SCOTUS.
Not mentioned in the article is that they raised over $100,000.00 through Go Fund Me and paid the fine with interest years ago.
The did not "close their bakery", they closed their storefront and continued the business at home,
they did not shut down or go out of business at all, if fact they expanded.
All of this was directly available information from their own website, since deleted, now still available on Wikipedia (although editable ).
They also sell what apparently is called rustic American religious art work and don't appear to be suffering from the 6 year ordeal.
For people who earn a living with a bakery, $135,000 is a massive fine. Perhaps liberal officials can control their hate for religious people when administering the law. That would have made this case along with the Colorado one a simple matter of enforcing the law.
You misunderstand what theleft argues. In their ideology, A business only is allowed to exist according to the controls placed upon it by government. It’s also known as fascist capitalism. The acceptable “capitalism” of Elizabeth Warren et al
And any quote from the Bible is not covered by the First Amendment?
It's called the public accommodation law.
By refusing to bake,decorate or even sell any kind of cake to anyone based on their private prejudices/beliefs, in a publicly operated business, they broke the law. That has been upheld, by the courts, the State regulator and the appeals court.
By closing their storefront and operating from home as a private club they are within their rights to discriminate once again.
Of course, that is the law, but not the issue here. The issue here, like the Colorado case is the actions of state officials.
For instance, if you, SP were to commit some common crime, I as the prosecutor may not call you a damn bigot and display open hostility to whatever you are or what you believe. It's fairly simple, isn't it?
As these cases progress through the system, a lot of issues are in play and the Court doesn't want to address them all at once or with vague circumstances. When they do that, they take on the role of lawmakers instead of law interpreters. They can see that this might end up being a case where behavior is ok given one set of circumstances, but not another set of circumstances. They prefer to make a narrow ruling but they can't do that without narrow circumstances.
They also seem to prefer to let the circuit courts come to conflicting conclusions on the same issue and then they resolve that conflict.
And before they get to any of that stuff, they have to make sure the rules of due process are being observed.
If it wasn't completely ineffectual and dysfunctional, Congress is really in a better position to resolve these issues. It's hard to see that happening, though.
The SCOTUS sent it back to the Oregon court to reconsider, but there is no reason to suggest they will, or even have to, change their original ruling.
EDIT: Roberts made a deal to punt LGBTQ discrimination cases until after the 2020 election.
I agree.
Roberts has put himself in a tough spot. When he came out publicly and said the court didn't have ideological lines. There are several cases now they have punted on.
It's only been kicked around for 6 years so far, lol.
They need more time?
possibly after the next national election?
/s
Nothing would fire up (and unite) the Democrats and Progressives more than to to enshrine freedom to be a religious bigot.
When they seek to invoke their religious beliefs as a defense to treat others as less than equal they are bigoted.
Supreme Court said the state was hostile towards the bakery and the bakery was forced to close due to the hostility...sounds like another time in history to me.