--:-- [Theme music fades out]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Welcome to Today Explained. I'm Sean Rameswaram.
--:-- Noel King: And I'm Noel King.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Today the Supreme Court issued a decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, or as it’s colloquially known, the “gay cake” case.
--:-- Noel King: The 7-2 ruling sided with a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.
--:-- Emily Bazelon: Hi, I'm Emily Bazelon, writer for the New York Times Magazine. I'm here to help explain this decision.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So, let's start with the basics. What's the case about?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: The case is about a baker named Jack Phillips who owns a store in Colorado. He refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple who wanted the cake to get married.
--:-- Noel King: And why did he refuse?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: He said he didn't believe in gay marriage, and it violated his religious beliefs.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So, the gay couple went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission because Colorado has a law that protects people against being discriminated against on the basis of sexual orientation.
--:-- Emily Bazelon: That's right. And the commission ruled in favor of the gay couple, saying that Phillips had discriminated against them.
--:-- Noel King: But then Phillips sued, saying his religious beliefs were being violated.
--:-- Emily Bazelon: And he also made an argument about his free speech rights, saying that he saw the cake as conveying a message that he didn't believe in.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: So, what did the court say today?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: The Supreme Court essentially punted, saying that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had treated Jack Phillips's religious beliefs with insufficient respect and deference.
--:-- Noel King: And what does that mean?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: It means that the court is sending the case back to the commission to be re-examined.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: But didn't the court essentially say that the baker's religious beliefs are more important than the gay couple's right to be served?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: Not exactly. The court said that the commission had made a mistake in how it treated Phillips's religious beliefs, but it didn't say that his beliefs are more important than the gay couple's rights.
--:-- Noel King: So, what's the bigger issue here?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: The bigger issue is whether a business owner has the right to discriminate against customers based on their sexual orientation.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And what did the court say about that?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: The court didn't really say anything about it. It just punted the issue back to the commission.
--:-- Noel King: And what does that mean for the future?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: It means that the issue will likely be taken up by the court again in the future, but for now, it's being handled on a state-by-state basis.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And what about Justice Kennedy's opinion in this case?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: Justice Kennedy's opinion is interesting because he's trying to balance the competing interests of religious freedom and gay rights.
--:-- Noel King: And what does that mean for the future of gay rights?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: It's hard to say. Justice Kennedy is a key swing vote on the court, and his legacy is tied to his support for gay rights.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And what about Justice Gorsuch's opinion?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: Justice Gorsuch's opinion is more extreme, saying that businesses should be able to refuse service to customers based on their religious beliefs.
--:-- Noel King: And what does that mean for the future of gay rights?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: It's a concerning trend, because it suggests that the court may be moving in a more conservative direction on issues of gay rights.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And what about the politics of this issue?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: The politics of this issue are complex, but it's clear that the court's decision has been a disappointment to many in the LGBTQ community.
--:-- Noel King: And what about the potential for a national federal law that protects gay people from discrimination?
--:-- Emily Bazelon: That's a possibility, but it would require a lot of work and advocacy to make it happen.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: Thanks, Emily, for helping us understand this complex issue.
--:-- Emily Bazelon: Thanks for having me.
--:-- [Theme music starts playing]
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And now, a word from our sponsor.
--:-- Noel King: ZipRecruiter.com is the smartest way to hire.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: We used it to find our interns, and it was a huge success.
--:-- Noel King: Yeah, we got a lot of qualified candidates.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And it's free to try.
--:-- Noel King: So, go to ZipRecruiter.com slash explained to learn more.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And thanks to our sponsor for supporting the show.
--:-- Noel King: And that's it for today's episode. Thanks for listening.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And don't forget to follow us on social media.
--:-- Noel King: We're on Twitter, Facebook, and Instagram.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And if you have any questions or topics you'd like to discuss, email us at [email address].
--:-- Noel King: Thanks again for listening.
--:-- Sean Rameswaram: And we'll see you tomorrow.
--:-- [Theme music continues to play as the episode ends]