Cake for gay
On June 4, the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited judgment in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Colorado civil rights agency held that the cakeshop owner and baker, Jack Phillips, had violated the State’s law against sexual orientation discrimination when he refused to provide a queer male couple with a wedding cake to celebrate their union for religious reasons. Phillips argued that the Articulate had violated his constitutional rights under the First Amendment – which protects the free train of religion, and freedom of speech – because his wedding cakes are expressions of his beliefs.
What the Supreme Court said. By a vote of 7 to 2, the Supreme Court commanded that the Colorado Commission had violated Phillips’ right to the free use of his religion because it had failed to cure his case impartially. Instead, the Commission had been influenced by bias against his religious convictions – which the Constitution prohibits. The Court’s majority concluded that the Express proceeding had been tainted by anti-religious bias for two reasons: (1) two of the Commissioners had publicly expressed what the Court viewed as anti-religious opinions, and the Commiss
Colorado high court to perceive case against Christian baker who refused to form trans-themed cake
On the heels of a U.S. Supreme Court victory this summer for a graphic artist who didn’t want to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, Colorado’s highest court said Tuesday it will now hear the case of a Christian baker who refused to make a cake celebrating a gender transition.
The announcement by the Colorado Supreme Court is the latest development in the yearslong legal saga involving Jack Phillips and LGBTQ rights.
Phillips won a partial victory before the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 after refusing to make a gay couple’s wedding cake.
He was later sued by Autumn Scardina, a trans woman, after Phillips and his suburban Denver bakery refused to make a pink cake with sky frosting for her birthday and to celebrate her gender transition.
Scardina, an attorney, said she brought the lawsuit to “challenge the veracity” of Phillips’ statements that he would work for LGBTQ customers. Her attorney said her cake command was not a “set up” intended to file a lawsuit.
The Colorado Supreme Court didn’t explain how or why it made the determination to hear the case. It was announced
Cakes for Same-Sex Unions
This is an area of Catholic moral theology in which we are seeing fresh developments on existing principles (not changes to doctrine, but developments in how it is to be understood and applied in practice). To the finest of my knowledge, the most recent instruction we have from the Vatican that applies to the issue of same-sex unions is Considerations Regarding Options to Give Legal Recognition to Unions between Gay Persons, issued in 2003 by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. It states:
In those situations where homosexual unions have been legally commended or have been given the legal status and rights belonging to marriage, clear and emphatic conflict is a duty. One must refrain from any kind of formal cooperation in the enactment or application of such gravely unjust laws and, as far as possible, from material cooperation on the level of their application. In this area, everyone can exercise the right to conscientious objection (5).
Providing services for a party that celebrates a gay union, such as baking a cake, does not rise to the equal level of cooperation in the event as does providing services that directly
'Gay cake' row: What is the dispute about?
In October 2016, the owners of the bakery lost their appeal against the verdict that their refusal to make a "gay cake" was discriminatory.
Appeal court judges said that, under statute, the bakers were not allowed to provide a service only to people who agreed with their religious beliefs, external.
Reacting to the ruling, Daniel McArthur from Ashers said he was "extremely disappointed" adding that it undermined "democratic freedom, religious freedom and free speech".
The firm then took the case to the Supreme Court and they won.
The UK's extreme court ruled the bakery's refusal to make a cake with a slogan supporting same-sex marriage was not discriminatory.
Then president of the Supreme Court, Lady Hale, ruled the bakers did not refuse to fulfil the order because of the customer's sexual orientation.
"They would have refused to make such a cake for any customer, irrespective of their sexual orientation," she said.
"Their objection was to the word on the cake, not to the personal characteristics of Mr Lee."
And from there, Mr Lee took his case to Europe,
You may recall the controversial "gay cake" case (Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd) that was heard by the Supreme Court in 2018. This is the case of the Christian bakery who refused to make 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 terse, the facts of the case are as follows. Mr Lee, a same-sex attracted man, ordered a cake from Ashers Bakers, to sign 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 blunt discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation and religious belief or political opinion. 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 bisexual customer who requested the same cake and therefore the conclusion was not because of Mr Lee