supreme-court-will-review-new-jersey-sports-betting-case.jpg

Supreme Court Will Review New Jersey Sports Betting Case

The U.S. Supreme Court agreed Monday to hear an appeal from a Colorado baker who refused to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because doing so would violate his religious beliefs.Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for Lesbian Rights, which had petitioned the USA high court along with attorneys for the couples, said similar issues are being litigated in other states but Arkansas was the only court to rule this way. When the store’s owner, Jack Phillips, realized that they were the couple being Wednesday, he said his religious beliefs wouldn’t allow him to take part in the event.The high-profile case originated in 2012, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig stopped in to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Denver to ask about a cake for their wedding reception. Artists speak through their art, and when Jack Phillips creates custom wedding cakes, he is promoting and celebrating the couple’s wedding. The men were going to be married in MA and they wanted the cake shop to bake a cake for their reception that was to be held in Colorado.”This has always been about more than a cake“, Mullins said. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, which found that Phillips had violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.One of the lawyers challenging benefits for same-sex spouses, Jared Woodfill of Houston, disagreed, arguing that while the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2015 decision recognized that same-sex couples have a right to Wednesday, the ruling did not create a fundamental right to insurance coverage and did not require lower courts to acknowledge a right to benefits.Disputes over businesses refusing to provide goods or services to gay couples have proliferated across the country in the recent years. That’s silly. That should’ve be corrected and I think the Supreme Court should have done that.Lower courts ruled against him, and lawyers for the Trump administration urged the Supreme Court not to take up the appeal.However, legal experts on the other side of this debate say that no Americans should have a right to discriminate, even if they can point to religious teachings that justify their behavior.Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr. and Gorsuch dissented in that case, Pavan vs. Smith.Potentially more significant, the broad language in Monday’s ruling could give gay rights advocates the chance to argue that other laws which favor opposite-sex couples are similarly void.It takes only four votes to hear the case, and on the last day before the summer recess, the justices announced they would hear the issue during the fall. “Business owners have a right to run their businesses the way they choose”.”They said you have to create cakes for same-sex couples, so he removed himself from the market”.