Supreme Court supports Colorado baker’s First Amendment right to refuse ‘gay’ couple

4½ years ago, in December 2013, Colorado administrative law judge Robert N. Spencer ordered Jack Phillips of a bakery in suburban Denver to bake a wedding cake for two homosexuals or face fines, even though doing so violates Phillips’ Christian religious beliefs.

The homosexual couple had sued Phillips.

Phillips said he’d rather shut down his business and go to jail than compromise his beliefs.

Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Colorado

This morning, the Supreme Court ruled 7:2 in Phillips’ favor.

Reuters reports that the Supreme Court ruled that, in its handling of the claims brought against Jack Phillips, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated a hostility to religion and violated the baker’s religious rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

According to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in refusing to bake a wedding cake for “gay” couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig, Phillips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law barring businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.

Homosexual couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig

Of the Court’s four liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, while Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the five conservative justices in the ruling. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote:

“The [Colorado Civil Rights] commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”

The Supreme Court, however, stopped short of issuing a definitive ruling on the circumstances under which people can seek exemptions from anti-discrimination laws based on their religious views. Justice Kennedy wrote:

“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.”

President Donald Trump’s administration had intervened in the case in support of Jack Phillips.

H/t FOTM‘s MomOfIV


From the AP:

People streamed into Phillips’ cake shop after the ruling came down, embracing him as his phone rang repeatedly with congratulations from people who view him as their champion.

Supporter Ann Sewell, who brought a clutch of congratulatory balloons to the bakery, compared Phillips’ bravery to people opposed to the Vietnam War.

“If you could be a conscientious objector and not fight in a war then you should be able to hold to your convictions in something as simple as this when it is not hurting anyone,” Sewell said. “It might offend someone, but that’s life.”

In November, Phillips headlined a rally at Colorado Christian University, not far from his bakery. Somewhat nervous, he voice rattling as he thanked those attending. At the conclusion of his five-minute address, the crowd swarmed around Phillips, touched him and prayed.


43 responses to “Supreme Court supports Colorado baker’s First Amendment right to refuse ‘gay’ couple

  1. Well, proggies should be pleased with this outcome. Now their Muslim bakery friends are protected, too.

    Liked by 6 people

  2. Great, although I think the ruling should have been unanimous, rather than 7-2.

    Liked by 3 people

  3. How can it be that someone can call themselves queer and obligate a business to do business with them? What if I’m a contractor and I say “I don’t want to build an addition on your house”? Am I obligated simply because someone insists they are deviants?

    There are lots of bakeries and lots of contractors. They did this because the hate Christianity. What about THAT form of discrimination? Aren’t we “protected” too?

    Liked by 4 people

  4. I was pleasingly shocked to read of the 7:2 verdict. In today’s “news thread” they did not list the number of justices who voted either yea, or nea . . . . but instead listed the verdict as “VERY CLOSE.” Perhaps I am not too bright, but I do not consider a 7:2 verdict as “very close.” This just shows the evil nature of those who will stop at nothing in telling their lies to misinform us, the American people.

    God Bless MomOfIV, and Dr Eowyn for taking a stand in bringing the truth to you and me. It is a great day!

    God Bless America, God Bless the US Supreme Court, and God Bless the American people!

    Liked by 6 people

    • And God bless President Trump for intervening on behalf of the baker!

      Liked by 6 people

    • Must be “new math”. More like “wishful thinking”.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Auntie – it has now come out that RBG and Sonya were the two ‘dissenters’ – I’m actually surprised that the other two ‘usual suspects’ (self labeled as ‘liberals) on the court didn’t go along with them.

      Liked by 4 people

      • it has now come out that RBG and Sonya were the two ‘dissenters’

        You make it sound like it’s some new discovery.

        From my post:

        “Of the Court’s four liberals, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, while Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan joined the five conservative justices in the ruling. “

        Liked by 3 people

    • I saw the very close notice of CNN in the early reporting also Lulu. This just shows how far a left-wing news organization will go to slant the news against conservative values. I am not surprised that the two dissenting votes were Sotomayor and Ginsburg. Neither of these justices care anything about the true meaning and interpretation of the Constitution. I remember reading an opinion from Ginsburg some years ago in which she used as justification opinions from the German High Court. I remembered thinking at the time that Ginsburg believed the Constitution was not the true law of our land. We may have to put up with Sotomayor for quite a while, but I certainly hope that Ginsburg has the decency to retire. While it’s my wish, I don’t think it’s going to happen anytime soon.

      Liked by 3 people

  5. I think many people misunderstand this ruling. The ruling as Dr. E has pointed out is against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and their hostility towards the baker who refused to bake a cake for a homosexual couple. This does not protect others from the same forms of lawsuits. This is not a judgment on bakers’ or florists’ rights to refuse service to homosexuals.

    It is however, a loss for those who are so hostile to Christianity. Nevertheless, this master baker, this brilliant designer of gorgeous works of art is now broke and destroyed, which is exactly why he was targeted by this homosexual couple.

    We have seen this over and over again. Gen. Mike Flynn’s legal bills defending himself are over a million dollars. The was started by two of his eight siblings to help him get out from under these staggering bills. Michael Caputo is facing the same problem with over $125,000 in legal bills (all because of Mueller).

    There needs to be a new law…those who bring charges that are frivolous and destructive need to make the defendant whole when the defendant wins.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Yes, it’s about the Commission and their attitude. But it’s a start and it’s pissing off the “resistance.”

      Anything that makes them mad is a gain!

      Liked by 6 people

    • That is how lawsuits are handled in the UK. If one brings charges and loses they are responsible for all costs. That’s pretty good law. In the US you can counter sue, but both sides lawyers get the gold mine, you get the shaft.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Christian Zionist . . . . I am all in favor of forcing those who bring “frivolous and destructive” lawsuits to make the defendant whole when the defendant wins. This is such a shameful predicament. I heard on the radio, where this “husband,” speaking for himself and his husband said the slight done to him was such that it defamed the entire community. I had never heard such a bunch of malarkey in my life.

      Liked by 4 people

    • “This does not protect others from the same forms of lawsuits.”

      I noticed that & felt frustrated that the “Supremes” often seem to “stop short” in their rulings. Aren’t their caseloads over-burdened as it is? Why not just “do it right” the first time & save them having to hear numerous other future similar cases?!

      Even so, it’s great news for the Phillips family. What a (legal) burden off their shoulders finally (though the financial burden remains). It’s a very touching story & with the update, a near tear-jerker!

      I hope the fag community learned a lesson that they do not call the shots as much as they have been inflated to think they do.

      Liked by 4 people

      • TPR, you stated: “I noticed that & felt frustrated that the “Supremes” often seem to “stop short” in their rulings. Aren’t their caseloads over-burdened as it is? Why not just “do it right” the first time & save them having to hear numerous other future similar cases?!”

        What makes you think the Supremes exist and are there to “do the right” thing? Laws that are written well need no “interpretation”. But ‘the word’ is often mangled and not to the benefit of the public. Is this an accident or a mistake?

        FREEDOM of ASSOCIATION is clear. There is no need to clarify or interpret. Unless you’re a deceiver and a liar.


  6. I love that pic of the two love birdies, so adoooorable and sweet, Hahaha, I would love to bake them a cake it’ll blast their asses off.

    Liked by 4 people

  7. Comrade Obama

    These queers did not need to prosecute this baker. They targeted him for destruction because of his Christian beliefs. America is not about waging vendettas. I am in agreement in adopting laws which makes suits or legal actions “loser pays.” It might make people more realistic and less reckless. I hope this baker counter sues, as all others who have been discriminated against by this godless cabal of deviants.

    Liked by 6 people

    • Comrade Obama . . . . I am 100% behind you in those thoughts. This litigation frenzy is deliberately calculated to cripple, to crush, and to annihilate those with Christian beliefs. I must confess, I never thought that in my lifetime I would see this happen to those who express a love for, and belief in, and are ardent followers of Jesus Christ, the Savior.

      Liked by 4 people


    Now that the Supreme Court is a day late and a dollar short, is there any chance of those swindled shakedown victims any of their money back???

    Liked by 5 people

  9. Pingback: Supreme Court supports Colorado baker’s First Amendment right to refuse ‘gay’ couple — Fellowship of the Minds – NZ Conservative Coalition

  10. We are also not celebrating fag and deviant behaviour days at the White House this year. Thank you President Trump.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Yep – the WHITE House is still bathed in WHITE light!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • I learn so much by standing aside, allowing my students to talk to each other, and eavesdropping. Overheard in a conversation among several 7th-grade boys the last election ( IN CA) : “My mom and dad are voting for Trump because they said they don’t want me to think I have to choose between marrying a boy or a girl when I grow up.”

      Liked by 4 people

      • Haha, cute. I always enjoy your classroom stories.

        What are the kids saying re Patrick Little vs. Diane Feinstein election tomorrow?

        Liked by 3 people

        • Unfortunately, TPR….my parents/thus, kids….are very uninformed beyond anything other than the national level races. They probably do not know who Feinstein is…neither do their parents…even after all these years, and years in which these kids’ parents grew up knowing NO ONE ELSE other than Feinstein as their Federal Senator (MY GOD…she’s a century old or at least has served a century????…..). Our own Melissa Melendez, from our little inland town, has been treated hideously as a state rep in Sacramento (banished to the basement for her office for her anti-illegal stance, her Trump support) and I bet none of my kids’ parents know who she is or what has happened to her in Sacramento or why…..and SHE IS THEIR REP in this State—elected by them!!!!!!!

          Liked by 2 people

  11. Humongous victory! I didn’t see it in the link ,but an attorney argued (successfully) that these types of cases were simply extortion based on the fact that the “customers” were in effect trying to use the law to force someone to provide something that does not yet exist. in other words, if a merchant refuses to sell items that already exist to a black person, that IS discriminatory. NOT selling something that does not exist/has to be made CANNOT be discriminatory. Not sure if that occurred here, or in a different case, but absolutely brilliant!!!

    Liked by 5 people

  12. It is typical that the leftist media wonks are all bemoaning the fact that “now they can refuse to bake cakes for Italians, Irish and Africans.” Huh? They are equating homosexuality with ethnicity? If all the SCOTUS justices would render their decisions based on the Constitution and not political agenda, all their decisions would be unanimous.

    Liked by 4 people

    • “If all the SCOTUS justices would render their decisions based on the Constitution and not political agenda, all their decisions would be unanimous.”

      So who is the law meant to protect? Why do we need a ‘supreme’ law of the land exactly? Could we not live in normalcy and peace otherwise? Would normal people (who are presumably in the majority) not be able to rule themselves without being told, from on high, what is ‘legal’?

      Liked by 1 person

  13. THIS decision was why it was of the utmost importance to get President Trump elected – I’m just pleasantly surprised it wasn’t another 5-4 decision.

    Liked by 5 people

  14. What the hell happened to this Country? I will do business with whomever I please and I will not as well….. If my regular customers find my choices abhorrent, I will ultimately fail (as with the slide Dick’s is on). The “Government” may not make rules that discriminate, or restrict your first or second amendment rights (nor any of the rest, but it does), but private commerce certainly can and should be able to without government interference.
    “Speaking the truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act.” Geo. Orwell

    Liked by 4 people

  15. Since the location of this bakery is near several other bakeries, I have a feeling this bakery was singled out in order to file a profitable lawsuit.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Litigators obsessed with ADA compliance have filed numerous lawsuits to make a point (or profit):

      “Disabled file lawsuits in droves to force ADA compliance”


      Litigators force ADA compliance, but often collect hefty legal fees, leaving some business owners wondering about the motivation behind the lawsuits.

      Such ADA Title III lawsuits over accommodations in public places and businesses have proliferated nationwide in recent years, especially in South Florida, where nearly one in every five of the cases originates. Businesses have accused plaintiffs’ attorneys of creating a cottage industry of drive-by lawsuits to collect fees with no real motivation to improve access for the disabled. Many of the cases are from a handful of attorneys and disabled clients who have filed hundreds of lawsuits.

      Liked by 3 people

  16. Anybody care to place a bet on who goes home to Satan first, Hillary or Ginsberg? I don’t think Satan wants either of them. He’ll probably try to trade them to Moloch.


  17. The ONLY cases where we cannot allow someone to be as selective of their clientele as they wish is in cases where NO other options or choices exist,such as a Power Co.,where they are the ONLY provider available.
    (I thought there were LAWS against one entity ruling a particular area EXCLUSIVELY. I’m sure there is SOME lame excuse for why more than one electric company can’t serve the same area. Perhaps some sort of CAP on price would serve to “substitute” for Competition for business-I’m not too happy with THAT concept though).

    Liked by 2 people

    • Hey truckjunkie – some jurisdictions in Canada and the US such as Texas and Alberta do offer competition between electricity Retailers who compete on commodity price and other fees.

      The Electric Distribution Companies or ‘Wires’ Companies, however, are considered ‘Natural’ Monopolies in that it wouldn’t provide any extra value or cost savings to the customer to have different companies competing as to who hooks the standard wire to your house given the huge capital costs involved in building and maintaining a single Distribution System let alone several.

      Interesting Fact – Nikola Tesla developed a WIRELESS means of transmitting electricity that would have provided free energy to everyone, but J.P. Morgan refused to bankroll it in favor of Edison’s wired transmission system which allowed each household and business to be metered and billed by the Ekectric Co.

      Modern day Bankers are the spiritual descendants of the money changers that Jesus drove from the Temple…

      Liked by 4 people

      • ((They)) aren’t only ‘spiritual’ descendants of the money changers, they are the blood-line descendants as well. Blood line is everything. Just ask Kate Middleton about her peerage.

        Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s