lesbian commitment ceremony. the justices have wiped out the lower court rulings against t bakers. they are sending it back for another round of hearings. one of several big decisions we are waiting for this term. melissa murray, nyu law professor who served as law clerk to justice sotomayor. pete williams is in the court now. i know the second any more news comes out, we will have him in front of a camera. this brings back memories for folks involving a baker in colorado who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding. what does this mean? i m not sure that i would call it a victory for the bakery owner. what the court has said this they want the lower courts to go back and to reconsider this case in light of the court s ruling from last year. in that case the court, in a narrow ruling, said the tribunal that initially heard the request
but we ll have to wait and see what the president finally says, kate? absolutely. everyone is stand big for when that happens with this call and an important step moving in that direction. timing will be key. thank you so much. coming up for us, we will stay on top of the breaking news but also right now the order for a wedding cake that sent a bakery owner and a gay couple all wait to the supreme court. we re going to take you live to the supreme court as the court is considering one of the biggest cases and hearing oral arguments on one of the biggest cases of the year. what are the implications and happening in the courtroom. plus this, a quote/unquote stain on the republican party and the nation. that is what mitt romney calls alabama senate candidate roy moore as the republican national committee is now flipped and is now back supporting and putting money into that race. stay with us. this is electricity. this is a power plant.
so what are the arguments now for and against phillips, the bakery owner? creating the cake is speech. and it s also compelled speech in violation of the free exercise clause. forcing him to take a position adverse to his own religious beliefs. if you re the state of colorado or the couple, the argument is simple. this is not speech. if it is speech, it s the speech of the couple buying the cake. and not the cake maker who put this fondant and the icing on the cake. he s only providing a service so there s no need to discuss his free speech right. timeline for this to my understanding, the arguments are happening now. when could we see some kind of a decision? it s hard to say. it s always hard to say. unlike the travel ban which is going to be moved with some expediency, this is something that s just going to take its time in the supreme court. while i have you, while we re talking supreme court.
tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medicines, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sex. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain as it may cause an unsafe drop in blood pressure. do not drink alcohol in excess. side effects may include headache, upset stomach, delayed backache or muscle ache. to avoid long-term injury, get medical help right away for an erection lasting more than four hours. if you have any sudden decrease or loss in hearing or vision or any symptoms of an allergic reaction stop taking cialis and get medical help right away. ask your doctor about cialis for daily use. insurance coverage has expanded nationally and you may now be covered. contact your health plan for the latest information. developing tonight a colorado bakery owner is weighing his options after an appeals court upheld a ruling against his bakery for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple.
this basic idea of carving out space in this country where gay marriage is legal from coast to coast, carving out space for religious people who say i am morally opposed to this. if it s the law of the land it s the law of the land but i don t want anything to do with it. it gets down to the question should the bakery owner have to make the cake for the gay couple getting married. where do you come down on that? first of all, certainly the first amendment says that constitutions of faith that there is absolute power to you know to observe religious deeply held religious beliefs. i don t think it extends far beyond that. we ve seen the set of arguments play out in issues such as access to contraception. should it be the individual pharmacist whose religious beliefs guides whether a prescription is filled. or in this context, they re