I appreciate your message, @HoustonSam . The reality of this case is that it presented a true clash of rights, each of which can be fairly described as both important and reasonable. Few of us want to see folks discriminated against, and few of us want to see folks bashed for exercising their religious liberty.
I learned quite a bit from the Gorsuch and Thomas concurrences; as I said before I'd recommend a careful reading of the case by folks on both sides of this dispute. The value of the decision will lie in the markers laid down in the concurrences to the majority opinion. The majority punted, and given the build-up this case received that is disappointing. But the case didn't really present the issues the way the Court wanted them framed. For example, Phillip's refusal of service took place at a time when same-sex marriage was not yet recognized as legal in Colorado. Moreover, the record wasn't entirely clear whether Phillips had refused only to prepare a cake with a same-sex "wedding" message or whether he had refused any cake at all. Finally, the facts weren't all that clear whether the baking of a cake represents the sort of "expression" that triggers the protection of free speech rights.
I think the Court realized after the case was briefed that it wasn't the sort of case it really wanted to rule on. After all, there's an old adage that bad facts make for bad law. So the Court decided to absolve the baker on the narrowest of possible grounds, while giving him no guidance regarding how to run his business going forward. I think Mr. Phillips deserved more.
@Jazzhead I don't know how you make that claim. The second sentence reads:
In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that
he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf7th page:
Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create†wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained,
“I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.â€
18th page:
Additionally, the Division found no violation of CADA in the other cases in part because each bakery
was willing to sell other products, including those depicting Christian themes, to the prospective customers. But the Commission dismissed
Phillips’ willingness to sell “birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,â€29th page:
We
know this because all of the bakers explained without contradiction that they would not sell the requested cakes to anyone, while they would sell other cakes to members of the protected class (as well as to anyone else). So, for example, the bakers in the first case would have refused to sell a cake denigrating same-sex marriage to an atheist customer, just as the baker in the second case would have refused to sell a cake celebrating same-sex marriage to a heterosexual customer. And the bakers in the first case were generally happy to sell to persons of faith,
just as the baker in the second case was generally happy to sell to gay persons. In both cases, it was the kind of cake, not the kind of customer, that mattered to the bakers. 33rd page:
After sitting down with them for a consultation, Phillips told the couple, “‘
I’ll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don’t make cakes for same sex weddings.’â€
35th page:
The
fact that Phillips might sell other cakes and cookies to gay and lesbian customers was irrelevant to the issue Craig and Mullins’ case presented.