This is good news, but they punted in one way– while excoriating the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for their treatment of the baker, they did not ultimately answer the broader issue of religious liberty. So it’s good news in part. Keep in mind, this case is from 2012, so it took 6 years, and the baker lost at every other level of the justice system. That should worry us.

Here are the details.

Via Fox News.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, in one of the most closely watched cases of the term.

In a 7-2 decision, the justices set aside a Colorado court ruling against the baker — while stopping short of deciding the broader issue of whether a business can refuse to serve gay and lesbian people.

The narrow ruling focused on what the court described as anti-religious bias on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when it ruled against baker Jack Phillips.

“The Commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his majority opinion…

The court in December specifically examined whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the local baker to create commercial “expression” violated his constitutionally protected Christian beliefs about marriage.

Via CNN.

The Supreme Court ruled narrowly in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake to celebrate the marriage of a same sex couple because of a religious objection.

The ruling was 7-2.

The court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed hostility toward the baker based on his religious beliefs. The ruling is a win for baker Jack Phillips but leaves unsettled the broader constitutional questions the case presented.

The ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, is not the wide-ranging ruling on religious liberty that some expected. It is tailored to the case at hand with the justices holding that members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed animus toward Phillips specifically when they suggested his claims of religious freedom was made to justify discrimination.

This section is for comments from's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Tammy agrees with or endorses any particular comment just because she lets it stand.
5 Comments | Leave a comment
  1. Tim Peck says:


    “the Commission treated Phillips’ case differently from a similar case involving three other bakers, for reasons that can only be explained by hostility toward Phillips’ religion.”

  2. Tim Peck says:

    Heather R. Higgins @TheHRH
    Great that decision was defiinitve 7-2. Unfortunately it is also clear that Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor don’t see religious freedom as important.

    • Canonbal says:

      If Ginsburg and Sotomayor really do think religion is so unimportant, maybe they should just abstain from writing anything at all under those circumstances!

      Ya right i know, fat chance in He11….

  3. Alain41 says:

    Pride marches this month ending June 24 with NYC, San Francisco. I’m guessing less subdued than normal. At the least, this is all that reporters will ask about. Also, is the Democrat fund raising letter out yet?

  4. Kitten says:

    As Tammy mentioned, I’m thrilled Jack Phillips persisted 6 years for this outcome. It’s way past time for Christians to push and fight back against those who would try to destroy us because of our faith. Bottom line, that is what this was all about. Thank God!

You must be logged in to post a comment.