‘We Don’t Serve Your Kind’ Ruling

From the ACLU:

“The Supreme Court today reaffirmed the core principle that businesses open to the public must be open to all in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The court did not accept arguments that would have turned back the clock on equality by making our basic civil rights protections unenforceable, but reversed this case based on concerns specific to the facts here. The American Civil Liberties Union argued the case on behalf of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who were refused service at a Colorado bakery because they are a same-sex couple.

“In 2012, Mullins and Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a cake for their wedding. After the bakery turned the would-be customers away because they were a same-sex couple, Mullins and Craig filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The commission found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple in violation of Colorado law, a decision the Colorado courts upheld. The Supreme Court today found that members of the Commission had made statements evidencing anti-religious bias, and thus had not given a fair consideration to the bakery’s claims.

“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.” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU.”

So the ACLU is saying that it is a very narrow circumstance, but one knows that this will be adopted in a much more broad context and that there will be all sorts of litigation to broaden discrimination by claiming it infringes on sincere religious beliefs.

The thing to note here is that besides a 2-justice dissenting opinion, there were actually two OTHER sets of opinions filed too, which concur with the final opinion but hold different reasoning. So while this looks like a YUGE setback for equal rights on the face of it, there’s a lot of wiggleroom.

Nevertheless, religious bigotry just got a scalp, and a roadmap for how to take away more rights from people. My guess is that they will go after housing next, so religious people won’t have to rent to the ‘mos and the sluts.

This entry was posted in Homophobia, marriage equality, Theocrats, We Don't Serve Your Kind. Bookmark the permalink.

13 Responses to ‘We Don’t Serve Your Kind’ Ruling

  1. E.A. Blair says:

    I would have offered the opinion that they could refuse to serve same-sex couples as long as they also refused to bake wedding cakes for people who had been divorced or couples who live together before the wedding.

    Liked by 1 person

    • tengrain says:

      That’s an immediate impact of it, too… except no one is likely to actually refuse service based upon it. But let’s see.



    • Jim says:

      The CO Civil Rights Commission blew it, frankly. I hope they learn to be cleverer in their reasonings against the God-botherers when this comes up again (and it will). I suspect the other cases with less “provenance” won’t even make it to the Supremes. This cake is thoroughly baked at this point.


  2. RWW says:

    Soo….one’s bias against a religion using crackpot ideas to discriminate against people is NOT OK, but a religious adherent using his crackpot religious bias to discriminate against people is OK.

    Liked by 1 person

  3. Ali Redford says:

    Makes me wonder about trying a lawsuit as a peacemonger whose religious liberties are infringed…
    (I’m aware that those have not worked in the past.)


  4. Big Bad Bald Bastard says:

    Name and shame- if a store is owned by bigots, call them out. Good people outnumber shitbirds.

    Liked by 1 person

  5. This was a stupid lawsuit. There are better ways to out assholes.


  6. Redhand says:

    The Supreme Court today found that members of the Commission had made statements evidencing anti-religious bias, and thus had not given a fair consideration to the bakery’s claims.

    This could be an exception one could drive a truck through, or try to. I mean, any “balancing” in favor of LGBT couples could be construed as “anti-religious bias,” no?

    It’s still a setback. When was the last time the Supremes upheld a “we don’t serve your kind” position?

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Randall says:

    Number 1: if someone is forced to bake you a cake – DON’T EAT THE CAKE!
    2: If you’re a baker, get off your high-horse – IT’S JUST A CAKE fer chrissakes! Nobody’s forcing you to have sex with them – just bake the damn cake!
    3: If someone doesn’t want to bake a cake for you – go down the street to another bakery that would be HAPPY to bake your cake for you.


Comments are closed.