Thread by @HNIJohnMiller

1) So.... 'No Gays Allowed' is trending because some absolute fucking dipshit apparently misunderstood what the fuck the SCOTUS ruling stated and put a sign outside his store stating such. This? This is why I hate people. So fuck it. Let's break this down. supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf…

2) First off, Justice Kennedy writes the opinion. Conservatives have the best Kennedy's, don't we? He's not actually related to the Dem side Kennedy's btw such as this sterling example of the left.

3) So right away, Kennedy breaks down the case. This is a conflict between people's ability to freely exercise their beliefs under the first amendment and the right of gay couples to freely access publicly available goods and services. (accidentally a few words, reposted)

4) "The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech."

5) Kennedy immediately comes out and lays the groundwork that an artistically designed cake meant to deliver a meaning counts as free speech. This is a beautiful refinement of what the term free speech represents.

6) "This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning." Its... Its just so BEAUTIFUL.

7) Keep in mind, unlike the dipshit hardware store putting up 'No Gays Allowed' signs, the gay couple in question were not having their business refused

8) There was simply a conflict between a gay couple's right to purchase the service of the design and delivery of a wedding cake meant for a gay marriage ceremony and the baker's right to not want to be associated with said ceremony.

9) "Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality."

10) "The Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws."

11) THIS RIGHT HERE is where it counts in the distinction between the Cake case and the sign saying No Gays Allowed.

12) Businesses which serve the public are generally prohibited from discriminating against classes of people. I'm sure Tennessee, where the No Gays Allowed hardware store is, has a similar law.

13) The state CAN say that you have to sell publicly available goods to all people. IE, you can't stop gay people from buying hammers, nails, and paint. What the state CANNOT do is force you to design for, create, and present a good for a ceremony against your beliefs.

14) "...when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach."

15) "That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil
Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires." This is a bitchslap to the CO Civil Rights Commission.

16) Now for some cold hard facts. "Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. "

17) "At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver."

18) YYYYYYUP. Gay marriage was actually ILLEGAL in Colorado at the time this case arose. See, this is partially what Obergefell v. Hodges was trying to resolve. Gay couples would get married in other states where it was legal then try to get their marriages recognized elsewhere.

19) This build up of crisscrossing laws about what all was recognized meant that in Obergefell v. Hodges, the Supreme Court decided that the states had to recognize the gay marriages that were legal elsewhere. But O v. H happened in 2015. The cakeshop incident happened in 2012.

20) "Phillips informed the couple that he does not “create” wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. 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.”

21) Publicly available goods were not denied to the couple. Hell, he even offered them shower cakes, presumably for when they adopted, he just opposed the ceremony itself, which again would have been illegal in Colorado.

22) "Phillips explained that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage, and also because Colorado (at that time) did not recognize same-sex marriages."

23) So, Colorado has a law prohibiting discrimination based on a bunch of different factors for businesses which are meant to be open to the public, but expressly exempts religious institutions. The law itself acknowledges religious beliefs when it comes to goods and services

24) The problem is, the law does not take into account religious beliefs when it comes to the offering of services for specific ceremonies would go against those beliefs.

25) By the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which is meant to adjudicate cases involving this law, while a Christian church could not be forced to host the ceremony for a gay wedding Christians could be forced to participate by providing a service to the ceremony.

26) "The Civil Rights Division opened an investigation. The investigator found that “on multiple occasions,” Phillips “turned away potential customers on the basis of their sexual orientation, stating that he could not create a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony or reception”"

27) "because his religious beliefs prohibited it and because the potential customers “were doing something illegal” at that time."

28) So this wasn't some special exception, the baker had been consistent in his actions that he refused to create a cake specifically for a wedding service and reception, because his religious beliefs were against it AND because the weddings were illegal by Colorado law.

29) "[T]he ALJ determined that Phillips’ actions constituted prohibited discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, not simply opposition to same-sex marriage as Phillips contended." So even though he was quoted as saying he would offer them any other service

20) It became discrimination according to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because he refused to contribute to ceremonies he disagreed with and were illegal by Colorado law at the time.

31) The Colorado Civil Rights Commission HAMMERED the cakeshop with demands for compliance reports, training, and demands to participate in ceremonies that opposed, and the court of appeals backed the Colorado Civil Rights commission in this.

32) "As this Court observed in Obergefell v. Hodges, “[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” "

33) "while those religious objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners ... to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law. "

34) So go fuck yourself No Gays Allowed hardware shop asshole.

35) "When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion."

36) "Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws"

37) Here, Kennedy is acknowledging that there needs to be a distinction between the free expression right to refuse participation and the provision of goods and services.

38) However, THAT WASN'T THE PROBLEM HERE. See, the only item of contention here was the wedding cake, which would have to be designed created and presented. Event he petitioners, those representing the cakeshop, agreed.

39) "Petitioners conceded that if a baker refused to sell any goods... for gay weddings, that would be a different matter... that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker"

40) Phillips entire contention has been with this line of reasoning. His argument had always been that the creation of the specific wedding cake would be an artistic expression of an act he disagreed with and which was at the time illegal in his state.

41) "Since the State itself did not allow those marriages to be performed in Colorado, there is some force to the argument that the baker was not unreasonable in deeming it lawful to decline to take an action that he understood to be an expression of support"

42) "At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive." Wait, what's this now?

43) "Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining..."

44) " to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages." See, this is funny. The Colorado Civil Rights Division had no problem with cake shops refusing to design cakes that demeaned gay marriage.

45) And I agree with that too. The law cannot compel someone to create an artistic expression for a message that they find offensive. However, the state has to be equal in how it handles this law.

46) "The neutral respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection."

47) And this is where Kennedy the nice guy ends and Kennedy Destroyer of Worlds begins.

48) "That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips’ case."

49) "At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community."

50) One commissioner stated this opinion twice: “[I]f a businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the— the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.”

51) "Standing alone, these statements are susceptible of different interpretations.
On the one hand, they might mean simply that a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation, regardless of the proprietor’s personal views."

52) "On the other hand, they might be seen as inappropriate and dismissive comments showing lack of due consideration for Phillips’ free exercise rights and the dilemma he faced. In view of the comments that followed, the latter seems the more likely." OH SHIT

53) "On July 25, 2014, the Commission met again. This meeting, too, was conducted in public and on the record. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting’s discussion but said far
more to disparage Phillips’ beliefs."

54) "“I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. 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""

55) So to the commissioner who stated this, publicly and on the record, opposing gay marriage on religious beliefs is like the justification of the holocaust.

56) "“I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others.”" WOW. Just WOW.

57) Baker: Hey, sorry, if you want to buy some cookies or what have you for the table spread, go for it, but I'm not going to bake a cake specifically for a gay wedding that is illegal in this state.

Civil Rights Commission: STOP USING YOUR RELIGION TO HURT PEOPLE!

58) "To describe a man’s faith as “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use” is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways:" Go onnnnnnnnn

59) "by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical something insubstantial even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips’ invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust."

60) Kennedy nuke count: More than North Korea's.

61) "This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s antidiscrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation."

62) "The record shows no objection to these comments from other commissioners. And the later state-court ruling reviewing the Commission’s decision did not mention those comments, much less express concern with their content."

63) "Nor were the comments by the commissioners disavowed in the briefs filed in this Court. For these reasons, the Court cannot avoid the conclusion that these statements cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case."

64) Yeahhhhhh @TwitterSupport this is getting REAL damn annoying. I know you just have your panties in a bunch about how the Supreme Court can't force people to bake wedding cakes, but here I am AGREEING that a 'No Gays Allowed' sign is stupid and isn't what the ruling is about

65) AND YOU BREAK MY GODDAMN THREAD ANYWAYS.

66) "As noted above, on at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully"

67) "The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message the requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the other cases."

68) "Additionally, the Division found no violation of CADA in the other cases in part because each bakery was willing to sell other products... But the Commission dismissed Phillips’ willingness to sell “birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies,”"

69) "In short, the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious objection did not accord with its treatment of these other objections"

70) "Before the Court of Appeals, Phillips protested that this disparity in treatment reflected hostility on the part of the Commission toward his beliefs. He argued that the..."

71) "..Commission had treated the other bakers’ conscience based
objections as legitimate, but treated his as illegitimate—thus sitting in judgment of his religious beliefs themselves."

72) "The Court of Appeals addressed the disparity only in passing and relegated its complete analysis of the issue to a footnote." In other words, the Court of Appeals hardly even ADDRESSED the issue that the Civil Rights Commission discriminated against his religion.

73) "A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters”"

74) "it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive." I cannot emphasize how much Kennedy is lighting these mother fuckers up.

75) "The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs. The court’s footnote does not, therefore, answer the bakers concern."

76) The Colorado Court of Appeals' judgement was hereby reversed. Not remanded to a lower court. not vacated, straight up REVERSED. IT IS SO ORDERED MOTHERFUCKERS.

In the interest of fairness, I'll do concurring opinions by Kagan and Gorsuch later.

77) Thomas has a part concurring one too. NICE. Then Ginsburg and Sotomayor dissented. HAH. Roasting that one later too.