knapplc
Active member
Not sure I would go that far. We have very specifically in the constitution, a freedom of Religion. So, what this ruling does is make it easier if people want to practice Sharia Law themselves. I don't see it making it now more likely that all of us will have to abide by Sharia Law.
This freedom is specifically stated and, as much as I support gay marriage...etc. I actually think I would have had to vote in favor of this ruling if I were on the bench.
The baker has a religious believe that he can not support gay marriage. He's not going out and preventing the gay couple from getting married. But, he should not be forced to be a part of it if his beliefs don't go along with it.
The court isn't in charge of making rulings with fear of what the implications are down the road with non-related cases or issues. It's in charge of making rulings as it pertains to their interpretation of the constitution and that specific case.
That freedom is not all-inclusive. For example, a business offering goods & services cannot refuse those services based on, among other things, a person's race, color, religion or national origin, per federal law. State laws vary, but most states have public accommodations laws which have (mostly) similar scope, and some include other things like familial status, gender preference, etc.
It looks like this ruling wasn't intended to have a broad scope, but was specifically and only about this particular case. Kind of interesting, that being the situation, that the Supremes even took this on.
Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker
Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, emphasized the narrowness of the opinion.
"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," Melling said in a statement.
Kennedy wrote that there is room for religious tolerance, pointing specifically to how the Colorado commission treated Phillips by downplaying his religious liberty concerns.
"At the same time the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," Kennedy wrote, adding that the "neutral consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here."
"The commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion," Kennedy said, adding to say that the case was narrow.
"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," the opinion states.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, in her dissent which was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor, argued that "when a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding -- not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings -- and that is the service (the couple) were denied."