Colorado Baker wins USSC case 7-2

Bottom Line: Baker does not have to bake the cake

"The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances 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." 

Kennedy reasoned that Phillips, in refusing to create a same-sex wedding cake, had good reason to believe he was within his rights. State law at the time allowed merchants some latitude to decline specific messages, such as those demeaning gay people and gay marriages.

The government cannot impose regulations hostile to citizens’ religious beliefs, the ruling said.

During oral argument in December, Kennedy and other conservative justices had expressed concern about the potential effect on other merchants with strong religious objections to same-sex marriage, from chefs to florists.

Most observers are calling this a "narrow ruling" in that it does not create a larger precedent that would allow businesses to refuse to serve gay people in general. But that, of course, was never really at issue (as much as the left wanted to frame it that way).

What was at issue is whether or not you can "force" a business owner to specifically cater a message or specifically require them to endorse an event (such as a same sex marriage) with their services, that is against their religious views.

The legal argument has always been on the side of the bakers, florists, caterers, and such. The Religious Freedom and Restoration Act, along with the first amendment provides both a federal law, and a constitutional right to refuse to endorse a specific activity... whether that be a Nazi rally, an Adult movie awards banquet, or even a same sex wedding.

That all being said, look for more litigation in the future, with many liberal Justices ruling against the business owners, as if the decision from the USSC did not exist.

_______

UPDATE: I think some people seem to be missing a particular point here, or possibly seeing a point that may (or may not actually exist).

It's clear that the Court believes that the Colorado rulings were based largely on a hostile attitude regarding Jack Phillip's religious beliefs. For some, this begs the question as to whether or not the USSC would have ruled differently had the Colorado Administrative agency been more "respectful" of Phillips and his views.

I think the question is wrong headed. It's not whether the USSC would have ruled differently if the Colorado Administrative agency had been more respectful. It's whether or not the Colorado Administrative agency would have been able to muster the same ruling "without" being hostile to religious views.

If you consider this ruling along with the 5-4 Hobby Lobby ruling, it's clear that the USSC has legally concluded that sincere religious freedom can and should be protected, even in a business setting. The key word here seems to be "sincere" as it describes these religious views. It's difficult to see how you reconcile the legal viewpoint that Phillips has legal protection for his sincere religious viewpoints, but still must create a cake specific for a ceremony he clearly feels is in direct violation of his religious view points.

Until someone reconciles this puzzle for me, I would stand by the assessment that this is a pretty clear victory for both Phillips and others who find themselves in similar situations.