Five-Year Long Battle Comes To An End Court Finally Rules For Christian’s Values
Jack Philips has been tied-up in his legal case, defending his Right to lead a life of faith. This case was originally brought to the publics eyes years ago when a Philips refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
According to CBS, the Supreme Court justices’ limited ruling Monday turns on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips. They voted 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips’ rights under the First Amendment.
As Written By Washington Post:
The Supreme Court on Monday ruled for a Colorado baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, but it left undecided whether a business owner’s religious beliefs or free speech rights can justify refusing some services to gay people.
Instead, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy’s 7-to-2 decision focused on what he described as religious bias on the part of Colorado Civil Rights Commission members who ruled against baker Jack Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop.
“The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here,” Kennedy wrote, adding that the commission’s decision that the baker violated the state’s anti-discrimination law must be set aside.
But Kennedy acknowledged that the decision was more of a start than a conclusion to the court’s consideration of the rights of those with religious objections to same-sex marriage and the rights of gay people, who “cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth.”
Future cases that raise those issues “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,” he wrote.
Such a case could come quickly: The court is set to consider this week whether to review a Washington state Supreme Court decision that a florist could not legally decline to provide flowers to a same-sex wedding there.
It wasn’t the clear-cut ruling that defends Free Speech but at least, in this case, Philips’ religious beliefs were protected. Because it wasn’t a clear ruling do you think this case will open up more possible arguments in the future? Let us know in the comments below.