Phillips informed the couple that he could not create a cake honoring same-sex marriage because doing so would conflict with his sincerely held religious beliefs. That decision ordered Phillips and his employees to create cakes that celebrate same-sex ceremonies and required him to comply with Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act by re-educating his staff (which includes members of his own family) and filing quarterly "compliance" reports for two years.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission said the baker violated a state law requiring that all customers be served, regardless of their sexual orientation.
Same-sex parents across the country will now both be listed on their children's birth certificates, thanks to a Supreme Court decision. The couple had married in MA but wanted a reception in Colorado, which did not allow gay marriage at the time. "Businesses should not be allowed to violate the law and discriminate against us because of who we are and who we love", said Mullins.
2013 that the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver had discriminated against two men - who had sought a wedding cake - due to their sexual orientation, in violation of the state's anti-discrimination law.More news: Man catches teen falling from park ride: 'It's OK to let go'
In 2008, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep guns in their home for self-defense. In other words, religious-liberty advocates have reason to be hopeful, but not necessarily to assume that they're heading for a win - yet, anyway.
Phillips justified refusing to bake the cake on the basis of his religious beliefs.
In 2014, the Supreme Court refused to review a judgment against a New Mexico wedding photographer who refused to work for a lesbian couple in 2008.
Arash Jahanian is part of the ACLU team representing the gay couple in the cake case.
A Colorado court had ruled against the baker. "With the eyes of the nation and history watching, the Supreme Court now has the opportunity to join lower courts in affirming that religious freedom does not grant a business owner license to harm others".