BREAKING: Supreme Court refuses to rule on another gay wedding cakes lawsuit…

In 2015 Oregon fined Christian baker Sweet Cakes by Melissa a whopping $135,000 for refusing to make a gay wedding cake for a lesbian couple. Well today, instead of issuing a ruling, the Supreme Court vacated the lower court ruling and sent the case back to the lower courts in light of their Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling:



I’m not sure why the court refuses to rule on the case, but they apparently feel that the lower court got it wrong with respect to their previous ruling on Masterpiece Cakeshop. That case, if you remember, dealt specifically with anti-Christian bias by the state of Colorado.

Hopefully this means that lower courts will find differently for Sweet Cakes by Melissa, but if they don’t I guess they’ll be right back to the Supreme Court once again.

Comment Policy: Please read our comment policy before making a comment. In short, please be respectful of others and do not engage in personal attacks. Otherwise we will revoke your comment privileges.

67 thoughts on “BREAKING: Supreme Court refuses to rule on another gay wedding cakes lawsuit…

  1. I suppose ALL business owners need to rethink where they set-up shop. If I were a baker, and had certain beliefs through my faith in scripture, I would never start a business on the left coast or in New York or in New England. I would start my business in the south central or southeastern USA, or up in Montana, Wyoming or other such place where faith in God is revered over the worship of LGBTQ

  2. Looks like SCOTUS’ version of kicking the can down the road. At some point, they are going to have to make a national ruling as to whether or not free citizens can be forced to do something they disagree with based upon their religious freedoms, especially when most LGBTQs take their business to other LGBTQ businesses. This was harassment and nothing less.

    I maintain that America is no longer a free nation. We are required permits to do everything, whether we are starting a business in a small town or are just a kid who wants to earn some money selling lemonade in front of the house (allowed in TX but not in most other states anymore).

  3. While I believe the court aced properly….this is going to come right back to them since I doubt the lower court is going to change their verdict.

  4. More fascist courts being slapped down. Hopefully they’ll “READ” what is right into this and vacate the fines since they clearly mentioned their ruling with the other case.

    1. I wouldn’t count on it. . . These are activist judges which we need to demand removal from the bench since they are not being blind to justice. But we will see and if they do not affirm the Masterpiece ruling, then we know just how activist they are and hopefully Supreme Court will protect our constitutional rights to practice religion from the bible.

  5. Sending this case back to the same liberal court is pointless. It will simply issue the same decision just like the Washington Supreme Court did. The problem is with liberal courts not following U.S. Supreme Court precedents.

    1. @sonofagip I don’t think the lower courts ignored the Supreme Court ruling. The lower courts in this case ruled on it long before the Supreme Court ruled on the other case. I view this as a victory because IMO the Supreme Court is telling the lower courts to revisit their decision with the other case in mind.

      Of course, the lower courts may come to the same ruling, but I think the Supreme Court will hear the case then and the bakery owners will win. It would have been better if the Supreme Court did that now though.

      When the bakery owners win hopefully they get their money back…$135,000 plus interest.

    2. Commie-socialist activist-progressive judges have no respect for the SCOTUS, the Constitution or Americans.

  6. Look no further than the spineless, gutless, Bolshevik Chief Justice Roberts to understand why SCOTUS has become the spineless, gutless, Bolshevik institution that it is. Seems pretty clear to most “thinking” people that these lawsuits deprive Christians of their constitutional rights to freedom of religion. In essence SCOTUS has bypassed the Constitution by establishing the religion of liberalism on all of us.

  7. The Supreme Court likely wants to determine whether the case presents original issues that would warrant its being heard by the Supreme Court. In doing so, it has provided guidance in asking the lower courts to reexamine the previous ruling.

    The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions. It has limited manpower and resources (including time), so it can’t respond favorably to every petition.

  8. Ladies and gentlemen calm down! They don’t want to hear this case because they ALREADY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE. They’re sending it back to give the lower court a chance to correct their mistake and work off of the precedent of their Masterpiece Cake ruling. They can’t take every cotton picking case that comes along after all.

    1. They haven’t addressed the issue of religious freedom, though. They ruled against Colorado vs Masterpiece because of the state’s overt contempt of religious belief which affected its treatment of the owner Jack Phillips.

    2. Meanwhile, lawyers are making a fortune while bakers, stationary stores and the rest are losing their businesses defending themselves.

      1. @charli That’s the crappy part. All of it’s crappy, but it’s really crappy when the state still wins even though they lost in court because the business is shut down and may not reopen.

    3. @grumpenstein Exactly. I’m sure the Supreme Court will take the case if the lower courts refuse to revisit it. Then the bakers will finally win, but I wonder if the state will obey the ruling. If that happens I wonder what happens in a case like that….where a state refuses to obey a Supreme Court ruling.

  9. So I guess we don’t have freedom of speech/religion anymore in this country. Once the government granted “special rights” to the LGBT community, it was only a matter of time before the tyranny started.

  10. The baker should have just given them a little cookie and told them that the cookie identifies as a wedding cake.

  11. I really don’t think that this is a bad thing. The Supreme Court is simply saying to the lower court, “I don’t think you were paying attention. Did we stutter? Try again.”

    The Supreme Court doesn’t re-hear the same issue over and over and turn over each decision. They normally make a big distinction and then they expect the lower courts to follow their lead.

  12. I really don’t think that this is a bad thing. The Supreme Court is simply saying to the lower court, “I don’t think you were paying attention. Did we stutter? Try again.”

    The Supreme Court doesn’t re-hear the same issue over and over and turn over each decision. They normally make a big distinction and then they expect the lower courts to follow their lead.

  13. Did the lower courts rule that the fine was going to stand?

    If they did I think this is a victory in a sense. The Supreme Court is sending it back to the lower courts basically telling them that a newer Supreme Court ruling should change their decision. If the lower courts ignore it and say screw the Supreme Court it will probably come back to the Supreme Court….if they’ll hear it.

    Let me know if I’m reading this wrong.

  14. I suppose ALL business owners need to rethink where they set-up shop. If I were a baker, and had certain beliefs through my faith in scripture, I would never start a business on the left coast or in New York or in New England. I would start my business in the south central or southeastern USA, or up in Montana, Wyoming or other such place where faith in God is revered over the worship of LGBTQ

  15. Looks like SCOTUS’ version of kicking the can down the road. At some point, they are going to have to make a national ruling as to whether or not free citizens can be forced to do something they disagree with based upon their religious freedoms, especially when most LGBTQs take their business to other LGBTQ businesses. This was harassment and nothing less.

    I maintain that America is no longer a free nation. We are required permits to do everything, whether we are starting a business in a small town or are just a kid who wants to earn some money selling lemonade in front of the house (allowed in TX but not in most other states anymore).

  16. While I believe the court aced properly….this is going to come right back to them since I doubt the lower court is going to change their verdict.

  17. Sending this case back to the same liberal court is pointless. It will simply issue the same decision just like the Washington Supreme Court did. The problem is with liberal courts not following U.S. Supreme Court precedents.

    1. Commie-socialist activist-progressive judges have no respect for the SCOTUS, the Constitution or Americans.

    2. @sonofagip I don’t think the lower courts ignored the Supreme Court ruling. The lower courts in this case ruled on it long before the Supreme Court ruled on the other case. I view this as a victory because IMO the Supreme Court is telling the lower courts to revisit their decision with the other case in mind.

      Of course, the lower courts may come to the same ruling, but I think the Supreme Court will hear the case then and the bakery owners will win. It would have been better if the Supreme Court did that now though.

      When the bakery owners win hopefully they get their money back…$135,000 plus interest.

  18. Ladies and gentlemen calm down! They don’t want to hear this case because they ALREADY ADDRESSED THE ISSUE. They’re sending it back to give the lower court a chance to correct their mistake and work off of the precedent of their Masterpiece Cake ruling. They can’t take every cotton picking case that comes along after all.

    1. They haven’t addressed the issue of religious freedom, though. They ruled against Colorado vs Masterpiece because of the state’s overt contempt of religious belief which affected its treatment of the owner Jack Phillips.

    2. Meanwhile, lawyers are making a fortune while bakers, stationary stores and the rest are losing their businesses defending themselves.

      1. @charli That’s the crappy part. All of it’s crappy, but it’s really crappy when the state still wins even though they lost in court because the business is shut down and may not reopen.

    3. @grumpenstein Exactly. I’m sure the Supreme Court will take the case if the lower courts refuse to revisit it. Then the bakers will finally win, but I wonder if the state will obey the ruling. If that happens I wonder what happens in a case like that….where a state refuses to obey a Supreme Court ruling.

  19. So I guess we don’t have freedom of speech/religion anymore in this country. Once the government granted “special rights” to the LGBT community, it was only a matter of time before the tyranny started.

  20. Look no further than the spineless, gutless, Bolshevik Chief Justice Roberts to understand why SCOTUS has become the spineless, gutless, Bolshevik institution that it is. Seems pretty clear to most “thinking” people that these lawsuits deprive Christians of their constitutional rights to freedom of religion. In essence SCOTUS has bypassed the Constitution by establishing the religion of liberalism on all of us.

  21. The Supreme Court likely wants to determine whether the case presents original issues that would warrant its being heard by the Supreme Court. In doing so, it has provided guidance in asking the lower courts to reexamine the previous ruling.

    The Supreme Court receives thousands of petitions. It has limited manpower and resources (including time), so it can’t respond favorably to every petition.

    1. @nbynw It’s pretty disgusting. Like I mentioned above, when the government granted “special rights” to the LGBT community it was a matter of time before the tyranny started. Barronelle Stutzman lost her freedom of speech and religion by this horrendous decision but you know, some people are more equal than others.

      1. Sadly true. She says she’s going to keep fighting. Maybe SCOTUS will consider it again. Maybe not. I was really disappointed they refused to hear the case concerning forcing high school girls to deal with transgenders in their restrooms and locker rooms.

  22. The baker should have just given them a little cookie and told them that the cookie identifies as a wedding cake.

  23. Still waiting for some gay couple to sue the Religion Of Peace™ Bakery

    Until then, screw ’em.

    1. @texas-chris I assume you saw Steven Crowder’s video where he went to several bakers in the Michigan area posing as a “gay” man wanting a wedding cake. Every single bakery turned him down. What do we hear from the leftist media? Crickets.

      1. Some commenters have claimed Crowder went to a number of Muslim bakeries that did agree to bake the cakes, but he didn’t include videos of them. I don’t know because I didn’t research it. Nonetheless, there haven’t been any cases filed against Muslim bakeries.

  24. Either a person of faith is or isn’t allowed to service a sinful ceremony. This should be a decision coming from the Church and shouldn’t be left to each individual’s personal feelings on the matter.

    1. shouldn’t be left to each individual’s personal feelings on the matter

      No. The individual is the only decider on what the individual will and will not do for a customer. No other governing body has the right to force the individual to serve.

      1. Agreed but they’re being left out to dry. It looks like they are choosing what to instead of what is expected of them. If they point to the church and say this is what my religion says I need to do, then no one can claim that they are being discriminatory.

  25. You know, this seems pretty easy to me. The STOTUS made a ruling with Masterpiece Cakeshop by (correctly) siding with the defendant. Since that’s precedence, it would take them what… 5 minutes to rule on these other cases too? But no, they send it back and “maybe” the lower court will rule the same way SCOTUS did? And incur additional egregious expenses on the defendants? Are they really so busy that they can’t quickly overturn the lower court’s (incorrect) rulings? After a few of these similar cases are won for the defendants in the same sort of ruling, the homosexual activists will begin to cave or think again – because these BS and frivolous lawsuits are expensive. This is a no-brainer to me. The Constitution and Bill of Rights has been upheld. To send them back seems outrageous.

    1. The problem is the Masterpiece ruling was too narrow. The SC said that the defendant was the victim of bias and cruel treatment by the state. The ruling did not address Masterpiece’s religious rights, right to associate, private property, or free speech, all of which are violated by the gays filing suit.

      According to that ruling these bakeries can be totally shut down if the agencies going after them do it in a nice way, I guess.

  26. More fascist courts being slapped down. Hopefully they’ll “READ” what is right into this and vacate the fines since they clearly mentioned their ruling with the other case.

    1. I wouldn’t count on it. . . These are activist judges which we need to demand removal from the bench since they are not being blind to justice. But we will see and if they do not affirm the Masterpiece ruling, then we know just how activist they are and hopefully Supreme Court will protect our constitutional rights to practice religion from the bible.

  27. Did the lower courts rule that the fine was going to stand?

    If they did I think this is a victory in a sense. The Supreme Court is sending it back to the lower courts basically telling them that a newer Supreme Court ruling should change their decision. If the lower courts ignore it and say screw the Supreme Court it will probably come back to the Supreme Court….if they’ll hear it.

    Let me know if I’m reading this wrong.

    1. @nbynw It’s pretty disgusting. Like I mentioned above, when the government granted “special rights” to the LGBT community it was a matter of time before the tyranny started. Barronelle Stutzman lost her freedom of speech and religion by this horrendous decision but you know, some people are more equal than others.

  28. Still waiting for some gay couple to sue the Religion Of Peace™ Bakery

    Until then, screw ’em.

    1. @texas-chris I assume you saw Steven Crowder’s video where he went to several bakers in the Michigan area posing as a “gay” man wanting a wedding cake. Every single bakery turned him down. What do we hear from the leftist media? Crickets.

  29. Either a person of faith is or isn’t allowed to service a sinful ceremony. This should be a decision coming from the Church and shouldn’t be left to each individual’s personal feelings on the matter.

    1. shouldn’t be left to each individual’s personal feelings on the matter

      No. The individual is the only decider on what the individual will and will not do for a customer. No other governing body has the right to force the individual to serve.

  30. You know, this seems pretty easy to me. The STOTUS made a ruling with Masterpiece Cakeshop by (correctly) siding with the defendant. Since that’s precedence, it would take them what… 5 minutes to rule on these other cases too? But no, they send it back and “maybe” the lower court will rule the same way SCOTUS did? And incur additional egregious expenses on the defendants? Are they really so busy that they can’t quickly overturn the lower court’s (incorrect) rulings? After a few of these similar cases are won for the defendants in the same sort of ruling, the homosexual activists will begin to cave or think again – because these BS and frivolous lawsuits are expensive. This is a no-brainer to me. The Constitution and Bill of Rights has been upheld. To send them back seems outrageous.

    1. The problem is the Masterpiece ruling was too narrow. The SC said that the defendant was the victim of bias and cruel treatment by the state. The ruling did not address Masterpiece’s religious rights, right to associate, private property, or free speech, all of which are violated by the gays filing suit.

      According to that ruling these bakeries can be totally shut down if the agencies going after them do it in a nice way, I guess.

Comments are closed.