Tuesday, December 5, 2017

Today the Supreme Court Will Hear Whether a Baker Has the First Amendment Right to Refuse to Bake a Cake for a Gay Couple


Today, the Supreme Court will consider whether Colorado may deny Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the right to sell custom wedding cakes because he cannot in conscience create them for same-sex weddings. Phillips, who has run his bakery since 1993, sells off-the-shelf items to anyone, no questions asked. But he does not deploy his artistic skills to create cakes celebrating themes that violate his religious and moral convictions. Thus he does not design cakes for divorce parties, lewd bachelor parties, Halloween parties or same-sex weddings.

Colorado’s order that he create same-sex wedding cakes (or quit making any cakes at all) would force him to create expressive products carrying a message he rejects.

 -RW

(via The New York Times)

10 comments:

  1. Why is this at the DC Supreme court at all? It a Colorado problem should remain in Colorado.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The arguments appear very nuanced and narrowly defined. There doesn't appear to be a scenario where there is a great for liberty that strikes down anti-discrimination laws. However, on the other side, the decision could cement a new era of Jim Crow based on forced association rather than forced segregation.

    Scary indeed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Forced association began with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's old hat.

      Delete
  3. According to accounts, the customer and his mother went to purchase the wedding cake from the owner of the bakery because of a recommendation by the wedding planner. The customers didn't want any message written on the cake, just wanted to purchase a regular wedding cake. The owner politely refused after being told whom the cake was for. So this wasn't strictly a case where the baker was asked to write a message that disagreed with his religious views or made to participate in an even he did not agree with, only to make and sell a generic, run-of-the-mill product.

    With that being said, the problem with the religious freedom argunent is the tacit agreement that so-called public accommodation laws are valid. But those laws aren't valid. The correct argument defending the baker's actions is Private Property Rights. The customer felt entitled to an exchange the other party did not want and thus, with his "wittle fweelings" hurt, involved the State in retaliation. That is what this case is about. It's not about religious freedom.

    I'm not religious. I would have baked the man a cake or a thousand cakes, but I still reserve the right to tell the customer to take a hike, otherwise I'll be no different than a slave who labors out of fear for his personal well-being.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep, you are exactly right. I'm a Christian and this is not about religious freedom, it's about property rights, and we know where they come from - two out of the ten:

      "You shall not steal." Exodus 20:15

      "You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that *belongs* to your neighbor." Exodus 20:17

      Delete
    2. Why tell the baker what sort of wedding the cake is for when it's just a plain stock wedding cake? Just order the plain cake and be done with it, unless of course it's a set up.

      Delete
  4. I hate that there are distinctions for "good" reasons and "bad" reasons for not providing a commercial service. I mean, why should religious conscience be a more valid reason than a bigoted reason, or simply because this customer standing before you is the guy that cut you off in traffic this morning? In the main, all the reasons come down to "I really just don't feel good about doing this"...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Should a Jewish deli owner be forced to sell to neo Nazi skinheads? Should a black soul food restaurant be forced to serve KKK members?

    All the right questions and even liberals will figure out the right answer.

    ReplyDelete