YOUR FAVORITE LOGO TV SHOWS ARE ON PARAMOUNT+

Supreme Court Rules 7-2 in Favor of Anti-Gay Baker

Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor voted against in the narrow ruling.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples due to his religious beliefs. Only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor voted against.

The court issued a narrow ruling in favor of Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, who turned away away gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins back in 2012, kicking off a legal battle that began with discrimination charges filed against the bakery with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Matthew Staver/For The Washington Post via Getty Images

LAKEWOOD, CO - SEPT 1: Jack Phillips stands for a portrait near a display of wedding cakes in his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO on Thursday, September 1, 2016. Jack Phillips is owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo., and has a case before the Supreme Court. He is one of the bakers who does not want to bake wedding cakes for same-sex couples, saying it violates his religious beliefs, and has been found in violation of Colorado law.(Photo by Matthew Staver/For The Washington Post via Getty Images)Slug: JACKPHILLIPS

It sided with Craig and Mullins, as did the Colorado Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last year.

Arguments were heard on December 5.

BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images

Charlie Craig (L) and his spouse, Dave Mullins, talk to the media outside the US Supreme Court as Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is heard on December 5, 2017 in Washington, DC.The US Supreme Court is to hear arguments on Tuesday in a case that has been described as the most significant for gay rights since it approved same-sex marriage two years ago.The landmark case pits a gay couple, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig, against a Colorado bakery owner who refused in July 2012 to make a cake for their same-sex wedding reception. / AFP PHOTO / Brendan SMIALOWSKI (Photo credit should read BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP/Getty Images)

"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," today's ruling reads.

It continues that while "Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."

"Still, the delicate question of 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. 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," it states.

"Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission’s actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside."

Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

WASHINGTON, DC - DECEMBER 05: Conservative Christian baker Jack Phillips (4th L) waves to supporters as he walks out of the U.S. Supreme Court building after the court heard the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission December 5, 2017 in Washington, DC. Siting his religious beliefs, Phillips refused to sell a gay couple a wedding cake for their same-sex ceremony in 2012, beginning a legal battle over freedom of speech and religion. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented Craig and Mullins.

The ACLU also responded to the ruling with a series of tweets.

Thank you to Charlie and Dave for your courage. We won't stop fighting until we ALL have equal treatment under the law.

— ACLU (@ACLU) June 4, 2018

"Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions that this case presented," said Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law. "It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent."

Latest News