The Supreme Court on Monday issued a ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, siding with the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.

While LGBTQ+ groups pointed out that the Court acknowledged their rights, they also noted something that was noticeably missing—Monday’s ruling was neither a hit or an advance for our current civil rights laws, as many expected it would be.

“In today’s narrow ruling against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court acknowledged that LGBTQ people are equal and have a right to live free from the indignity of discrimination,” Human Rights Campaign (HRC) President Chad Griffin said in an emailed statement. “Anti-LGBTQ extremists did not win the sweeping ‘license to discriminate’ they have been hoping for—and today’s ruling does not change our nation’s longstanding civil rights laws. Yet, the fact remains that LGBTQ people face alarming levels of discrimination all across the country and HRC’s efforts to advance equality are as urgent as ever.”

But what exactly does it mean for the LGBTQ community and religious freedom going forward? And what does it mean that the decision was “narrow?”

The case stems from a 2012 incident where David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop looking for a cake for their wedding reception. The baker, Jack Phillips, refused to make the custom cake, claiming that support for same-sex marriage went against his religious beliefs. The couple then filed a discrimination complaint with Colorado’s civil rights commission. They won with the commission and the state courts, where Philips asserted that his First Amendment rights had been violated.

The Colorado Court of Appeals held that they had not. That’s when the case made its way to the Supreme Court.

Monday’s “narrow” decision refers to the legal definitions and not to the actual vote of 7-2 in favor. In writing the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy said, “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 majority opinion focused less on the issue of free speech and more on problems with the way the case was initially handle by the civil rights commission in Colorado. According to Kennedy, one commissioner “crossed the line” with the following statement: “Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.” Kennedy called the sentiment “inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.”

But in dissent, Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote: “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.”

For some perspective on what cultural impact this decision might have, Glamour spoke to Rachel Tiven, CEO of Lamda Legal—a national organization that works ”to achieve full recognition of the civil rights of lesbians, gay men, bisexuals, transgender people through litigation, education, and public policy,” according to their website.

“This should have been an open and shut case for the Supreme Court,” she says. “Every single case like this that has appeared in court so far, courts have resoundingly said it’s not okay to discriminate just because your religion tells you to.”

“Under our laws, federal law and the law in many, many, many states, you can say, ‘No Shirt. No Shoes. No Service.’ but you cannot say, ‘No Shirt. No Shoes. No Lesbians.’ This is dangerously much closer to that than any decision has been.”

Tiven fears that this case now provides a roadmap for other people and businesses who are looking to discriminate. She notes that it is important to remember “that nothing in this decision changes existing non-discrimination law.”

On the other side, Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner of the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) who represented Philips released this statement following the court’s ruling: “Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment. Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage.”

“The court was right to condemn that,” Waggoner wrote. “Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack’s beliefs about marriage.”

While they may have exhausted all of their legal options, Craig and Mullins have vowed to keep fighting discrimination.

The couple issued a statement on the court’s ruling. “Today’s decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue,” they said. “We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are. We brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation of being told ‘we don’t serve your kind here’ that we faced, and we will continue fighting until no one does.”

The two are not without a fair amount of political support, as well.

In a statement, Democratic congressional leader Nancy Pelosi said: “The Masterpiece Cakeshop case is about the most fundamental right of all Americans: to be free from persecution and discrimination because of who they are or whom they love. While narrowly framed to apply to the decision-making process undertaken by the state commission, today’s wrongheaded decision fails to uphold equality in this case.”

“No business or organization open to the public should hide their discriminatory practices behind the guise of religious liberty.”

Source link