Fifty years later, the Masterpiece Cakeshop case posed the same question, and the court affirmed the underlying principle that our nation's businesses should be open to all. Shows Good Morning America. Consider the consequences had the Supreme Court given Phillips a sweeping victory.
TexasJustice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the Court declaring unconstitutional a Texas law that made it a crime to engage in private, consensual, adult homosexual activity. In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. That, though, is not expressing animus to religion: It simply says that a business has to comply with the laws of same sex wedding cake controversy in Derbyshire state and not discriminate.
ABC News Live. The justices wiped out lower court rulings against the bakers and sent the case back for another round of hearings. Kennedy eloquently said that if the right to privacy means anything, it is what consenting adults do in their own bedroom.
Smiththe implications will be great. That is not hostility to religion, but expressing the view that people should not be able to exercise their rights in a way that harms others. It's clearly protected. But Phillips refused and stopped making wedding cakes altogether.
No case before the U. The state urged the Supreme Court not to take the case, arguing that the lower courts ruled correctly.
In Pavan v. Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and Jesse H. That baker, Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake, said it would require him to act against his religious views and violate his right of free speech. Was There Hostility to Religion?