The author confuses either intentionally or unintentionally entirely different things.
A public servant (as marriage clerk) that refuses to perform his duties due to beliefs (like the mentioned Kim Davis), has to be replaced and not allowed to be in similar position again. No doubt about that.
But in order to have a free country and not a totalitarian one, a private person shouldn't be made to do something that is against his beliefs. We are not talking about a person refusing to sell goods due to discrimination. The baker was ready to sell a couple any readily available cake or to bake a special cake for birthday and similar. He just refused to make a special cake for gay wedding.
Being gay is something considered a mortal sin by Christianity, Judaism and Islam, at least. Judging the validity or morality of religious beliefs is absurd. Beliefs are not logic, one cannot argue them away. You either allow free exercise of religion or you don't.
The litmus test for the validity of the decision, I think, would be an imaginary case where a secular baker is asked to create a cake with anti-gay or other offensive message.
Do we want such a baker to be forced to create a cake against his wishers?
Allowing a state to force people to act against their will is a slippery slope.
5
This decision is what happens when Conservatives think they are making a “narrow” decision and it lacks the simplest level of thought, namely that of common sense. The people who refused to serve blacks or who presently refuse to rent to LGBT people likewise wrap themselves in their “personally help religious” belief. What about the religious belief of the victims here? Hey, Judge Kennedy, do you know that Inuits put people like you on ice floes in days gone by — and their religion held it to be a sacred belief. There is nothing dumber than a “Justice” passing themselves off as having wisdom when they haven’t got the kind, common sense of a Mr. Rodgers. Dumb as dirt Justice.
Who defines "sincere"?
The Masterpiece decision put the bakery business over and above the divine natural equal certain unalienable rights of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness of human persons. That is despicable.
The evil confluence of commerce, faith and government is the malign evil inhumane original American sin. On the eve of the Civil War the 4 million enslaved Africans were worth more than all of the other capital assets in America combined except for the land.
2
The problem with the ruling is that it permits discrimination based on sincerely held beliefs. Does anyone doubt that white supremacists are sincere in their hatred of jews? Blacks? Latinos? Muslims? Are they now permitted to open businesses across the country and refuse these people services. The sad truth is that gay people as well as other minorities need protection from discrimination. The one group that does not need protection from discrimination is white christians and that has been true since the Emperor Constantine. They are the ones from whom everyone else needs protection and now they have been granted license to ramp up the discrimination. I cannot believe the Supreme Court Justices don't know the harm that will be done under this "narrow" ruling. They know. Of course they know that, no matter how narrow the ruling is written, those employing it will take it much, much, much further. Of that there can be no doubt. Whether they want to admit it or not, they have violated the establishment clause by creating christian based legislation. The right wing are against judicial activism unless it advances their agenda. Even worse they have contravened recognized civil rights. One of the basic reasons why America had to happen and the civil rights movement had to happen was the oppression by white christians. And now they have a license to do so. What a terrible decision and one for which we will all pay dearly.
3
I think Silas House meant to say "sword" instead of "shield" in the following sentence: "I’m made wearier because religion is being used as a shield." I personally agree with House's view, yet wonder how do we as a people solve the problem that he raises: both sides believe their position is grounded the religious or philosophical "good." If one side is tolerant, they become loser while the intolerant wins and basks in glory. In my view, America's core value of equality -- a compelling governmental interest -- MUST prevail over religion.
I'm not condoning baker Jack Phillips' interpretations of Christianity.
Nor am I defending the raft of existing anti-gay laws so powerfully noted in Silas House's opinion piece.
But in the interests of perspective on Masterpiece Cakeshop, let me point out a few things that are being widely ignored. Even if most aren't actual legal points, they are still interesting:
-- Mr. Phillips did not refuse to sell a wedding cake to Charlie Craig and David Mullins. He allowed that he would sell them a generic cake, but he would not customize it with their names or additional decorations.
-- By all accounts, although Mr. Phillips was firm in his stance against gay marriage he was soft spoken and treated the couple with courtesy.
-- Consistent with his conservative interpretations of Christianity, Mr. Phillips has reportedly also refused a request to create a cake celebrating a divorce and will not create Hallowe'en cakes (holding that the holiday has its roots in Satanism).
-- Finally, the Supreme Court majority's emphasis on the anti-religious statements made by some Colorado Civil Rights Commission members seems, IMHO, very similar to the emphasis by Federal judges on President Trump's past anti-Islam statements during their findings that his executive order restricting immigration from selected countries was not a necessary national security action but discriminatory against Muslims (legal judgements which we liberals widely applauded).
6
Thank you for the clarity
Isn't Gorsuch an evangelical SC Justice? Didn't he write the decision in favor of an employer who fired a truck driver for driving his rig to a safe place during an ice storm? The driver chose to disconnect a fully loaded container which would have endangered the driving public on iced over roadways; he chose to find a safe warm place, rather than freeze to death with a load of commercial goods. That Decision simply confirmed what many of us already knew: Gorsuch would be a biased SC Justice, unable to be objective when a case appeared which might entail a commercial enterprise. He is a corporate shill, as was Scalia who decided that corporations were "people", based on a debunked old Superior Court Decision transcribed with an error. The transcriber used the word "individual" rather than the word spoken, "corporation". Scalia used that error and gave corporations personhood. Now, GM can donate unlimited amounts of money in the electoral process, because GM is really your next door neighbor.
2
As the dissenting opinions of Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayer, in addition to the call for a wider ruling from Justices Thomas and Gorsuch make clear, the Supreme Court opted to take the easy way out in this case, which is so narrow it really doesn't resolve anything. Even before I'd read the opinion, the 7-2 vote was a surprise.
I can't help but think of an African American and his white beloved being denied a wedding cake not because he is black but because mixed marriages are truly offensive to the religious convictions of the baker, or denied a wedding dress for the same reason: they can have a regular dress and suit, as many cookies as they like, but the baker and the tailor must respectfully decline to cater to events (no personal discrimination, mind) that conflict with her sincere religious beliefs which say that mixed marriages are an abomination before her god.
When the issue comes up again, and is tackled head on as it needs to be, I expect the Justices might not be in such strong agreement.
3
This retrograde decision attempts to have it both ways- legal discrimination against gay folks and an ostensible “defense of religious liberty” that claims no animosity toward gays.
The upshot of the bad jurisprudence displayed by the court in this case is that the culture has moved far beyond the anti-gay nonsense being accommodated here. This simple fact renders such decisions moot.
A healthy majority of Americans support full equal rights for LGBT folks. Hate does not do well in the marketplace except as fodder for ‘conservative’ media outlets doomed to pander to the diminishing returns of their shrinking audience. In one ill-conceived culture war salvo after another, the bigots of the political right have lost. Bigly.
Those who are happy with this decision are being untruthful when they say this ruling is harmless. Nevertheless they are free to express their 1st Amendment right to celebrate the ‘morality’ of sectarian cake bakers who abhor gays.
They should take note, however: The Closet Will Never Return. The right will not “overturn gay marriage”. We will not “debate” women’s rights or the right of our fellow citizens to exist as full participants in our society.
Separate and unequal was rejected a long time ago. And those on the right are free to dislike that, but not without consequence.
Equal rights go one way- forward.
2
It's long past the time that sexual orientation should be added to every nation's anti discrimination charters. Canada has already inshrined it in our Humam Rights code. To not do so is saying hate and discrimination are okay, or that being LGBT is a choice, a perversion, not something a person is. Love is love. This failure to protect LGBT people is just ignorance.
1
Gay Rights have come so far just in my lifetime. We went from "don't ask don't tell" to the legalization of gay marriage. The younger generations are more tolerant. Don't lose hope, we'll get there.
What we're witnessing is the last desperate act of those who have been in power for centuries realizing that they're becoming irrelevant. Despite popular belief we're not a Christian nation or a theocracy. We are a nation of laws and eventually the laws are adjusted to expand our freedoms. Society takes a lot longer to catch up.
5
Compelling one person to provide a product or service to another by force of the state is morally wrong, and akin to slavery.
6
Unless of course that business is open to the general public, using public infrastructure and business licensees. Which are subject to non- discrimination laws. Don’t like it? Move to Iran.
4
@Anderson O’Mealy: "Unless of course that business is open to the general public, using public infrastructure and business licensees. Which are subject to non- discrimination laws. Don’t like it? Move to Iran."
The justification of the "public accommodation" part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act is the Commerce Clause. Congress did that because of the SC decision in the Civil Rights Cases of 1883, which stated that private discrimination is constitutional. In essence, Congress used the Commerce Clause to force involuntary association with regards to commerce. That was not the intent of the Commerce Clause.
It is an odd and interesting fact that Jesus of Nazareth never mentioned homosexuality. Not once.
He was however very clear in condemning people who divorce and remarry.
So why do Christians have fits over the first, but give the second a free pass. Isn't it very clear that this baker would bake a sumptuous elaborate wedding cake for a second marriage (which Jesus called adultery) without a bobble? Is all this really motivated by religion, or are there other motivations here?
12
Wait till this religious freedom blows up in their faces because a Muslim uses the same logic for something these so called Christians don’t like.
6
Step one for progressive Kentuckians: Vanquish Mitch McConnell. Send him to history's trash heap where he belongs.
7
Is there NO limit to the deference this nation pays to religion? I don't expect my fantasies about some "Judgment Day" to be considered if I shoot up a school or drive my car through a group of protesters in the name of Zeus, or any other "deity". Moreover, why should a commercial enterprise be exempt? "Hell's bells" (to coin a phrase)- are we still in the Dark Ages? In large, thinly-populated parts of America, we are, indeed. When will we have freedom FROM religion?
5
There is a difference between providing service and providing personal service. It should, and hopefully still would, be illegal to refuse to rent a banquet hall to you and your spouse simply because you are gay. Whether an event coordinator should be required to decorate that hall to celebrate gay marriage and gay life is another matter, however.
The basic problem, as you indicate, is the religious orientation of the good people of Kentucky. What is remarkable is that you continue to subscribe to the same evil beliefs that they do, even after having suffered their consequences for your entire life. Grow up, Sir. There is no Heaven. There is no Hell. There is no Santa Claus.
3
If the baker is allowed to refuse service based on his religious belief, is there to be a test of his religiosity? Otherwise how is the court to know if he is truly pious or merely donning a cloak of religion to mask his own less lofty prejudice? It seems to me the court must have a way of determining his level of belief to grant him the right to discriminate.
7
They can’t use a lie detector test because they’ll discover the whole thing is a lie: imaginary sky friends, magic Mormon underwear, all of it. Couldn’t have our simple bigotry and homophobia exposed now, can we?
4
I'm a heterosexual male, married to the same woman for 32 years. If you run a business and want to discriminate against any class of human beings, I would appreciate it if you would place a large sign in the window of your establishment so I can take my business elsewhere.
11
Happy to, as long as I can do business with whom I wish.
2
Whatever happened to the "Separation of Church and State" if
a retail owner can foist his beliefs on those who patronize his business?
5
Apparently, there are no qualms about customers foisting their beliefs on the retail owners.
2
Mr. House, you write very well. So well that I would like to commission you to write an op ed about the conservative movement's many achievements. It's a dream of mine to have your wonderful writing celebrate my views. Surely you will accept this assignment, right? After all, as a professional writer, you don't discriminate, do you?
Wait, why not?
8
If some people received a dollar for every time that they are discriminated against they'd all be rich. Discrimination comes in all shapes, colors, sexes and ages. Older, overweight women have it all day, every day. Keep on going, out the door(s) of any business that decides to discriminate. This cake maker was being honest and up front about his religious beliefs, most people who discriminate will likely give another more hidden reason or excuse.
7
This whole religious freedom thing is a phony argument. All Americans are free to worship the god, or no god, of their choice, at tax exempt churches. And Christian evangelicals already have an outsized influence on our culture, I don't understand why they constantly fight for more influence, unless it has more to do with an authoritarian need to dominate and control, which is what I suspect. What if it's against my religion to support the military, can I just stop paying that portion of my taxes that go to the Pentagon and endless wars? What about my religious freedom?
9
The facts in the Masterpiece case were absolutely terrible for LGBT advocates. It isn't just that the Colorado Commission said some dumb things. If you are an advocate for the gay couple, the kind of case you would want to take to the courts concerns denial of services from a public agency or a big company or where the service is lacking in creative individuality; e.g., the dry cleaner who won't clean your clothes or a restaurant that won't serve you food or a hotel that won't provide accommodations. Most of us, I suspect, have felt all along why would you want an antagonistic person to make your wedding cake? or preside at the ceremony?
3
I guess you could also ask why a black person would want to be served at a lunch counter by someone who didn't like them?
1
"...it all just makes me weary to the bone." I've lived over 40 years as a disabled person, why should this man's travails make me sympathetic to him? Before the commentariat from the NYT responds that an "injustice to one is an injustice to us all" or "this uplifts you as a disabled person" somehow, let me remind you, there are other causes that need attention but that don't garner the support that LGBTQIA issues do. The poverty rate for people like me is higher than that of any other group. People of color are shot by the police regularly because the police don't feel safe.
The relentless maligning of people who DO support social justice but would like to see this attention directed at causes that impact more people "makes me weary to the bone."
2
I think this ruling sets a dangerous precedent, and it is foolish to think it will affect only the state in which it occurred. This ruling is essentially saying that it is okay to discriminate against someone based on their sexual orientation if your religion disagrees with it. It is a new Jim Crow aimed at the LGBT community. Mr. Phillips and other fundamentalists are hiding their bigotry behind the curtain of religion- a truly religious person would love and serve all people, regardless of whether or not they agree with their lifestyle. This ruling is just another symptom of Trump's America. It's shameful.
5
I think the Court (the 7-2 majority) simply ruled that this was not discrimination. They did not rule the baker or anyone has a right to discriminate. Please see the position that the State of Colorado took in their briefing -- they said they would not prosecute the baker if they thought he was simply refusing to perform a certain service to all customers. They simply felt he would have refused this couple the same cake (a generic cake) that he would have sold to someone else. The actual facts were fuzzy though. The baker understood they wanted a custom gay cake. Colorado stated refusing that would be LEGAL by Colorado law; but they had a different understanding of the facts -- they thought he refused any/all products. I'm not sure which way it happened. Colorado and SCOTUS both agree on what the law should be -- the merchant may discriminate on the service ("I do this, but not that, regardless of who's buying"), but may not discriminate on the customer ("I'll sell this guy a widget but not the same widget to that guy").
4
Silas, first, congratulations on falling in love and finding your partner. I am still single myself.
Second, "refusal in the name of God" of course is a really wrong interpretation of The Bible and God. Also, The Messiah, and Jesus. These anti-equality people have not "passed" the test. They are still flunking, failing. The Bible, is not a book I would write, because it is very difficult to understand. There really should be a Cliff Notes version, so at least people get the basics.
Unfortunately, what passes as religion, in the USA, is not really religion. It isn't religion, because "refusal in the name of God" is: using God's name in vain, which is against the rules. What rules? The Ten Commandments, as well as the lesson of The Garden of Eden. Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not murder. The Colorado Baker violated those rules.
Last, the paragraph that you wrote about other professionals like doctors seeking permission to refuse LGBT patients, is unprofessional. Their license should be taken away from them. These unprofessionals clearly did not understand what they need to understand in order to receive their MD degree, etcetera. Because I am at the Top Level of Higher Education, I know that in the Future, the standards for licensing and degree achievement, are going to be more demanding. Brilliance will be the goal, and denying patients because they identify as LGBT is not brilliant.
1
Edit: Should read: Last, doctors seeking permission to refuse LGBT patients, is unprofessional.
Really, half the human population is gay, whether they want to admit it or not. Those that live fully as gay people, whether coupled or not have economic power..a lot of it. Put it to good use and boycott haters like Jack Phillips who use religion to shut down and shut out the word he cannot cope with.
And the other half of the human population are liars.
This decisiion was a travesty. There are no threats to religious freedom in this country. Like everything else from the far-right, using "religious freedom" as a cover for their bigotry is a perversion.
6
I was fortunate enough to have a priest who realized that my black and white old school take on the catholic faith needed to be infused with empathy and the current spirituality. The spiritual direction I received made it clear that one of the most serious sins was to label a group of people thereby dehumanizing them and putting them in a box from which it's impossible to escape. Each person is entitled to be treated with compassion for who he or she is. I also remember how subsequently a Monsignor asked me whether I would attend my son's wedding if he was gay
- expecting me to say no - when all I could say was why wouldn't I want to see my son happy.
5
Dear Silas,
As an ex-Kentuckian from 50 years ago and by still having relatives (haven’t seen them in 30 years) deeply ensconced in the hills, I totally agree that this whole wedding cake scenario will embolden and give the fundamentalist bigots and hate mongers just enough incentive to up the ante in their anti-gay fervor - they’ll take it and run with it - with malice and glee. I have a cousin who preaches from the pulpit that homosexuals deserve to die of AIDS - all the while having a long, long history of predation and intimidation against women (the Kentucky State Patrol forced him into retirement because of his odious activities)..
Therefore, I know of what you speak and admire your perseverance in the face of so much appalling ignorance. Frankly, I firmly believe that it will still take a few generations to make change back there. So, stay strong, believe in yourself and your love - all the while being careful and guarding your own safety. They are Kentuckians - and all the ugly potential that implies.
Love and blessings to you and yours,
William
6
This specific case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, has be decided. SCOTUS sided with Masterpiece because they felt that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission approached this case with undue hostility toward Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs. In other words, Mr. Phillips was not treated fairly by the CCRC. Ironic as it is, case closed.
But the issue of a gay couple being being turned away by a business owner for religious or first amendments rights, was not decided on Monday. SCOTUS kicked that one down the road, for now. That will have to be another case.
It's not over yet. Maybe there's another same-sex couple walking into Masterpiece Cakeshop or some other bakery right now asking for a wedding cake?
3
I can't tell whether Mr. House is suggesting that the Masterpiece decision should have been decided on the basis of how it would affect people, rather than on the law. If he is, he should certainly be ashamed of himself.
It clear now that Kennedy needs to retire!
1
If Fredrick Douglas' great great great grandchild were a baker, should he or she be forced to make a custom cake with a Confederate flag and the saying "The South Will Rise Again?"
Should a gay baker be forced to make a custom cake that says "God Loves Straight People.?"
Of course, anyone should be able to buy a ready made cake that's on display in a commercial establishment. But why shouldn't a proprietor act be able to apply their own personal morality to a customized product? Abrogration of that right strikes at the heart of personal liberty.
5
What message was it that the couple wanted him to write on the cake, exactly?
4
Well, if there's one thing this thread vividly demonstrates it's that homophobes and racists are spiritual brothers & sisters.
It's never about bigotry; it's always about something else-- freedom of religion, or the rights of "artists, or the rights of businessmen, or freedom of association, or local customs, or the flag, or...pick your favorite excuse.
We don't hate black people, we just don't think athletes should kneel during the national anthem. We don't hate gay people, we just don't think gays & lesbians should tell us straight people--the majority!--what do to. We don't hate atheists, we just don't think non-believers should question our Christian faith.
As the inimitable Charlie Pierce would say, "They really are mole people."
In short, everybody should have the right to buy what they want where they want--so long as we don't have to sell it to them.
5
The Colorado Commission, by virtue of one big-mouthed member, displayed a bias against the cake-maker's religious position. This alone was the basis for the 7-2 decision. It's not about Christians or gays - it's about the Commission's lack of professionalism. Other cases of this nature, when presented properly, will directly address this complicated issue.
3
“Total acceptance”? Of what?
The underlying sentiment is that finding what gays do to be immoral is simply beyond the pale.
No, it’s not.
In a free society, people have the right to act as they see fit, provided that they harm no one else. But others have the right to find their actions immoral or objectionable, and to refuse to endorse those actions or associate with people who take those actions.
Religious freedom legislation is not “anti-gay”; it’s pro-freedom. You simply do not possess the legitimate right to use the law to compel others to accept conduct to which they object.
Oh, and here’s a guess that if the guy fired for wearing a shirt to which is boss objected were a pro-lifer wearing a shirt decrying murderous violence against the unborn, or someone wearing the Confederate Flag, both the author and the crowd of protestors would be on the other side of the discussion.
2
How fortunate we are to have you to explain the deepest thoughts and feelings of people you've never even met, based on your generalizations from one data point.
5
Thank you for sharing this.
4
I think that the perfect compromise would have been for Mr. Phillips simply to have stopped making wedding cakes. He could have continued to provide all other cakes, since wedding cakes were his only problem. I see no reason for him to make this a Supreme Court case.
5
Not only isn't it harmless, it is backward against everything anyone who has fought for this country would tell you.
Two people wish to celebrate LIFE TOGETHER. Oh! No! Not you two, why that is against my beliefs.
To me, it is treason. UnAmerican and above all, illogical and unethical according to the basic physiognomy of the Declaration Of Independence.
As Archie Bunker would say "this is America, GEEZ".
4
I feel like the main theme of Christianity is the love your neighbor and practice forgiveness...not bashing and ostracizing people based on who they are
6
No, the Masterpiece bake shop owner and people like him don't "think they are the only one who have ownership over God and belief." You are free to marry whomever you want. You are free to engage in whatever sexual behavior you choose. Employers may not fire you and public businesses may not refuse to serve you based on your sexual orientation. But, the fact remains that sexual morality is an underpinning of the world's three monotheistic faiths and has been for millenia. Part of that moral system is the belief that homosexual acts are sinful and that marriage is between and man an a woman. et you seek to nullify those religious beliefs and impose your own. You, Mr. House, and those who think like you are the intolerant ones.
3
Regulation of marriage by the church (and later by the government) is far more recent than you seem to realize. In the Middle Ages in England, two people were "married" if they agreed it between themselves, with no other witnesses. Church involvement came later, and in fact it's quite plain that marriage (in many varieties and flavors) has existed in some form in most cultures and predates and transcends Christianity and any particular religion. It is a cultural artifact of humanity. The fact that the religious rite and the human institution are bizarrely conflated in the US is just an unfortunate oversight on the part of the Founding Fathers.
2
If we eliminated the preferential treatment accorded to married people under the law, people could create unions according to their own beliefs and interracial and same sex marriages would no longer be an issue.
well... at least (from all I've read so far) the Justices didn't claim that the baker was an "artist" and give some kind of "official" credence for an equivalence between decorating cakes and real artistic production.
2
I wonder if the baker voted for the adulterer.
9
the Freedom expressed by the L G B T community scares the heck out of fundamentalists. it's like they cannot countenance others having FUN and expressing themselves with JOY. these jesus freaks are so scared they stand up proud and loud to support this misogynist in the oval office. with their support and these white supremacists helping communities across the nation will start leveling anti gay laws to segregate them from the rest of us, or so they think. what amazes me is how many L G B T folks still want to have religion in their lives. i understand not wanting to give up family, but the church you belong to telling you you are an abomination. PLEASE. until the bone spur president leaves true forward movement is at a standstill.
7
Interesting prose, one can infer this book seller might be up to some good work.
However, this essay is very poor analysis, as it is consistently misguided and confused throughout. For instance, the repeated theme of "good people." This is where neomarxists fall flat on there faces - they are convinced in fact that they are the good people, and think that we all may judge others good or bad and take things from there ie that judgement is essential to the process of social order. This is the height of solipsistic presumptuousness. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of human nature, and the history of human nature playing out via human action.
In fact and as proved by our long and well recorded history, we are all good and bad. To suggest that we do not operate as society because we can't agree on the dividing for line "goodness" is ludicrous, self-serving, myopic, and wrong. Social order and rule of law and civility operate to SET ASIDE that impossible judgement, because it's useless and counter-productive. Unless of course you are a post modern on a mission to run the social order. Then it's endlessly useful.
2
It occurs to me that part of the problem lies in these "very narrow rulings" that have become so common during the tenure of Justice Roberts. Roberts, himself no fan of the kinds of comprehensive, sweeping rulings issued by the Court under his predecessors Warren and Berger (Rhenquist to a lesser extent), has quite consciously tried to steer the Court to ruling only on the narrowest possible legal points, leaivng urgent questions of constitutionality for another day (or another Supreme Court). Such "narrow rulings," which have become a particular feature of the Roberts court, typically mean that in cases where great constitutional questions loom, the Court, by ignoring the larger Constitutional issue that looms and instead focuses on making a ruling that turns on a much narrower legal point, effectively kicks the can down the road, leaving open questions for which the country needs and deserves clarity. When the highest court in the land evades the more difficult question arising in a case, it essentially abdicates the role it was created to fulfill.
When the Court does this, it does a disservice to both sides of any question that comes before it. Critically important questions of constitutionality go unaddressed, and in the aftermath, neither side has gained any real clarity on the real, underlying question that was at the heart of a case.
2
Call it a narrow ruling all you want, but it's an important ruling on procedural due process that says that a tribunal must be impartial. Somewhere a lawyer for a kid convicted in one of those Title IX campus kangaroo courts is reading the opinion.
6
The fish fish that walked up onto dry land and ordered a milk shake from a soda stand probably got a lot of disbelieving stares as well. Who'd of thought fish drank milk in the first place.
1
Instead of settling for defeating oppression, I am afraid that many LGBTQ activists want to switch places with the oppressors.
As a lifelong supporter of gay rights, and human rights generally, I think the real tragedy on display here is the way in which many activists evidently think winning is not enough -- they must obliterate those who disagree with them.
Does Mr. House deny that there are many Christians -- some personally known to him -- who sincerely accept their church's teaching that gay marriage is wrong? They believe that as a matter of faith -- not out of animus toward gays.
Some of them don't want to participate -- even indirectly -- in celebrating gay marriage. Does Mr. House really think the law should force them -- on pain of having their businesses shuttered -- to symbolically affirm what their consciences (mistakenly in my view) tell them is wrong?
I always thought that gays, having been targets of bigotry, would be the first to sympathize with other people whose beliefs make them the object of social condemnation. Please don't prove me wrong.
7
I grew up with a number of devout Christians – otherwise apparently nice decent people – who believed that God hates interracial marriage. They could quote the Old Testament passages they based their beliefs on. Should their deeply held religious beliefs have permitted them to refuse to serve interracial couples in their day jobs? I don't think so.
The bar on discriminatory behavior is not universal. You can operate on a for-hire basis and fail to agree on a contract with anyone you choose, for any reason. But if you run a business as a public accommodation - a decision which generally makes businesses more successful - there is a cost in giving up you right to decide what kinds of people you will serve. If you can't do that, because of your faith or whatever, maybe you should be in another business, or operate on a smaller for-hire basis where you can pick and choose your clients. Ultimately trying to accommodate a broad universe of views on whom you will serve and whom you will either create pandemonium in the otherwise famously efficient American marketplace (imagine walking into a store never knowing if you will be turned away, because perhaps the owners won't serve white Anglo Christians, or meat-eaters, or people who drive gas-guzzling SUVs, or …) or it will result in a backlash where retail organizations will actively avoid hiring religious people with entirely too many caveats on whom they may do business with.
6
And how is this different from those who said "segregation forever" btw the races who said they weren't orejudiced.? They said the Bible validated their sincere beliefs.
2
Mal:
Not any bible that I know of. No mention of segregation at all. Have you got a cite?
Slavery existed in biblical times, and Yahweh urged Israel to annihilate the Canaanites and others, and some other horrific things, but I can't find the bit where God commanded the separation of blacks and whites.
Religious belief, sexual orientation, basic civil rights, Supreme Court decision legalizing marriage freedom-
Too many confusing elements muddying the issue. Clarification is in order:
When we go to work- it’s because we have to make a living,
NOT because of what/ who we believe in. That - applies universally.
When / if we want to practice our religious beliefs- we may go to our respective place of worship, or simply pray . Yes, inside our head because religious belief is a SPIRITUAL domain, NOT physical, as while we perform our work.
When mr. Philips, or anyone else perform their work- it’s all about THAT WORK. NOT ABOUT OUR RELIGION.
That is
Precisely what the
Supreme Court neede - but grossly failed to do yesterday Re.
The cake case.
6
That is merely your view of religion. There are other views that are the opposite of yours. That's why we need the 1st amendment enforced as it was designed to be, so we don't have to live under a one-size-fits-all state defined religious orthodoxy.
The Supreme Court side-stepped the basic issue of whether the government can use so-called "public accommodation" laws to force a business to participate in an event that impinges on religious beliefs of the business owner. The SCOTUS will probably grant certiorari in the case of a florist shop in Washington State and will then have to directly address the issue
.
Justice Gorsuch's concurring opinion in the Colorado baker case indicates how the SCOTUS will decide the florist case when he writes, "[T]here’s no indication the baker actually intended to refuse service because of a customer’s protected characteristic." The key word is "characteristic". Public accommodation laws prohibit discrimination based on characteristics such as race, national origin, general, sexual preference, etc. These laws do not prohibit discrimination based on what somebody does or thinks. A gay wedding, of course, goes beyond a mere "characteristic" and involves active participation on the part of the baker, florist, caterer, event organizer, decorator etc. As the SCOTUS held in the Colorado case, such participation involves First Amendment rights of such service providers. It is likely that the SCOTUS will in effect rule that if you are a member of a protected class, discrimination based on who you ARE is prohibited, but discrimination based on what you DO is not protected.
2
Baking a cake, manufacturing a chair, or even providing flowers does not qualify as "active participation" in a wedding. At best you might be able to justify "passive involvement in the reception", but frankly, even that is shaky. The hairdresser who cut the bride's hair several days before did not participate, the construction worker who built the church did not participate, and the electric company which provided the power for the lights did not participate. If you weren't at the ceremony, you may have contributed, but you did not participate. And if I paid for the cake, you didn't even contribute. You sold me a cake.
Sometimes I think Americans have just become entirely too precious for reality.
10
what are talking about???
what one does IS part of who he is....
sorry but you are looking for ways to discriminate ...
furthermore, 1 st amendment rights are being wildly misunderstood....
The expectation that the baker prepare a special order wedding cake, as requested by the gay couple, is being misconstrued as ‘compelled speech’.
the question is asked - why should he have to do this if he doesn’t agree with gay marriage?
It is as per customer request and the creation of the cake and the cake itself are therefore representative ONLY of the gay couple’s speech; it does not violate in the least the baker’s religious practice or his freedom of speech!
The perception that creating this cake would be offering religious endorsement of the baker for gay marriage is therefore totally twisted!!!
This line of thinking only reflects intolerance and bigotry, and pushes the bandwagons of ‘freedom of religion׳ and ‘Freedom of speech’ to justify discriminatory behavior.
It has no place in a free country.
living in a free country does not mean freedom to practice discrimination in a business that serves the public.
Our supreme court has basically failed to outlaw the same kind of behavior that contributed to the Nazi regime.
4
I think you've misread the Masterpiece Cake decision. Kennedy, Kagan and Breyer are not going to join with Gorsuch and the others to make a broad ruling allowing discrimination against gays in the public arena based on religious beliefs. That's why Kennedy crafted the decision so narrowly. Gay weddings are as protected as interracial weddings, or as integrated lunch counters. These justices have no intention of taking us back 60 years.
3
When I applied for, and received, exemption from military service during the Vietnam War, based on my conscientious objection arising from my “sincerely held religious beliefs”, I was required to apply for such an exemption. The application required me to state the nature of my beliefs and to show how that objection derived from those beliefs. I was also required to submit external evidence (statements of religious instructors, friends and neighbors, etc,) all in an attempt to legally verify the history and sincerity of my beliefs. The application was reviewed by military legal experts and approved. Of course, I might have just deserted and moved to Canada like many others. To me, this would have been tantamount to the “just find another baker” solution here.
We need to adopt similar legal mechanisms in civilian society by which freedom of conscience can be guaranteed even while as a society we evolve in such a way as to expand the franchise to the marginalized. A single individual must be able to claim conscientious objection to any mandate by the state and the state must review the claim and judge the validity of that claim based on objective criteria. This did not happen in the wedding cake case.
8
Brilliant idea.
I suspect, though, that those who want to turn away gays won’t want to officially record their stance. It might affect their profits, as it may be that others, who are not gay, might find other, more liberal minded, service providers to do business with.
2
"how do we get along with other people when our definitions of being a good person are in direct opposition? "
I think we do this by not assuming bad motives just because someone doesn't validate everything we do and believe and even when people actually oppose us. Why does Jack Phillips have to be a not-good person just because the views he holds make some people feel not-good? Do we not all have the right to follow our conscience and express ourselves even when others don't agree?
3
The author never says that Jack Phillips isn't a good person. He feels that many evangelicals regard LGBTQs as bad people because of who they are. Nobody assumes that Phillips isn't sincere in his beliefs. The question is whether he is violating the law.
1
'just last month in Kentucky, two people were fired because one of them was wearing a T-shirt to raise awareness about violence against L.G.B.T. people. The other was fired because she defended him. The co-owners said the worker had to be let go because his shirt made them “uncomfortable.” "
Kentucky:
1/ #46 in Educational attainment..
2/ #46 in Poverty.
3/ #43 in Employment.
4/ #43 in Medicare quality.
But #1 in obstructionist politicians.
10
Masterpiece isn't harmless but it also has a silver lining - it establishes the willingness of a SCOTUS majority to pay attention to external comments by the "defendants" (in this case, the CO administrators). The decision used those anti-religion comments as justification for the decision.
Now, think about the Administration's Travel (i.e., Muslim) Ban legislation that is being considered. Had the government (i.e., POTUS) kept quiet about their opinions and rationale, the rule might have been upheld. But now I suspect that the 7-2 majority (and those 2 dissenters) will find sufficient justification (delivered, helpfully via Twitter) to deny the ban - here we, too, know the attitudes of those putting forward and enforcing the rules.
5
I find your hopeful belief that this Court will see the need to be in any way consistent both refreshingly innocent and also quite unlikely.
5
It's one thing to be tolerant; it's another to be a celebrant or an advocate.
Considering myself liberal and open-minded, I once looked into joining a liberal church congregation in my community. When I learned that members were expected to march/demonstrate on behalf of the LGBTQ community, I decided not to join.
Likewise, Mr Phillips the Denver baker is certainly tolerant of all his customers (from his written account), he simply could not in good conscience be a celebrant of gay marriage. He has a right to his beliefs, to choose his clients, to express himself through his creativity and to celebrate and advocate for what he believes.
Tolerance is a two-way street. I am surprised this vote for freedom was not 9-0 by SCOTUS.
9
Interesting point you attempt to make. What if I refuse to sell Christians a cake for Christmas, because I can’t in good conscience celebrate Christianity? Or refuse to bake a cake for white people, without bothering to see the proposed design, because I can’t in good conscience celebrate Caucasians?
I suppose explicitly denying my services for these reasons is protected under your interpretation.
As an engineer, I could refuse to sign on off as the PE on a house a black couple is building, because to do so would be to celebrate black economic achievements, which could be something I am against. I wonder why this example seems familiar. Certainly couldn’t have happened in the relatively recent past.
Be careful how you define who can be denied service.
5
If you have a business license in any state, you must follow that state's laws to keep your license. You do not have the right to "choose your clients" in Colorado--you don't get to throw out black customers, or discriminate against gay customers. Mr. Phillips must provide the same services to all paying customers, and he must treat all customers with respect and dignity. He was not invited to the wedding or reception; he was not advertising his cake shop. He was making a product to sell for a profit.
4
This is a free country and hopefully it will continue to do so. I support gay marriage and also support the right of anyone not to be forced to create a custom cake if they don't feel like it for whatever reason.
8
The transportation industry uses the term, "Common Carrier" which means that a carrier must accept freight from all shippers without discrimination. The rule makes commercial sense. Imagine a country in which one would have to determine the individual preferences for each vendor one chose to use. For example, a Muslim vendor might not allow alcohol or pork to be shipped on their vehicles or certain individuals may not allow the shipment of guns, or birth control items or tobacco. Commerce would become very complex and expensive. This ruling by the Supreme Court may have a number of unintended consequences that the Court may have to revisit to fix. We should not promote discrimination by religion or race or gender in the area of public commerce. This is a terrible ruling. How ever did the Justices justify this?
10
What's very confusing about this case, and never explained anywhere: Will the Colorado Commission or some other group have to decide the case again? It seems the Supreme Court is saying that the process was flawed. In that case, doesn't the case get remanded?
I don't necessary agree that the result is bad for lbgtq. If the Colorado Commission had illustrated bias against lbgtq, the process would be bad too. The Court is saying that decision makers had better not have blatant prejudice against one of the parties in deciding a case. They have to decide on the merits, not based on their bias. This is actually a good result for everyone, if people take the trouble to understand it.
So in this case, the Court is monitoring a process not an outcome. Because a process has bias, the decision cannot stand. But then should the correct process be done, or is the court saying that the bad process was enough to basically kill off the case? This seems to be the case ... basically awarding the baker his money for suffering the bias.
1
Good question. Colorado is between a rock and a hard place. The SCOTUS made it clear, imo, that the CCRC was not only guilty of hostility but they were also guilty of using a different legal yardstick to rule on the merits of the Phillips case than they used for the other 3. If they re-opened and subsequently ruled against Phillips they'd probably have to rule against the other 3 they upheld. I think that's unlikely.
2
The decision basically says that because the state said something to hurt the cake shop owner's feelings, he can get away with discriminating against the gay couple.
Religious discrimination is a thing, and statutes that protect against it do so necessarily to protect people from it.
The decision also avoids a result that could inflame people just before the election, buying time to give Neil Gorsuch more 'legitimacy.'
The notion that property owners engaging in commerce may have their interests 'balanced' against the rights of people to engage in the economy is huge, i.e. private property, even in commerce use, may be more important that letting people participate in society, making it sort of a branch off Citizens United.
Unfortunately, the normalizers got out on all sides to minimize this case. This is not small. Discount the importance of it at the risk of all of us.
We will revisit this in the future and time will tell just how bad this decision is.
There is also the political effect of this case coming right before the election. There is a bottom line win for Republicans that will get much mileage, and what could best be described as a weak response by Democrats that could discourage participation and lend to the notion that 'both parties are the same.'
Mark my words. Watch it happen.
4
Excellent piece. America’s immortal declaration that “all men are created equal” has, since it was written to this day, been a loaded phrase. It has been burdened by a long line of court decisions, in which “Masterpiece” will fit quite nicely that allow racism, sexism, religious bigotry, Puritanism, classism and a host of other long-held societal conventions to make a mockery of—not the framers intent, as that was certainly not pure—but its literal meaning.
5
I think it's important that someone sue Kentucky for allowing religious groups to exclude LGBTQ kids. It's both an establishment violation because it's a law "respecting" a religion and a "free exercise" violation. I'd cite the Masterpiece Cake case. Justice Kennedy clearly said that businesses couldn't bar service to gay people; this is a school. It would be slam dunk. It would also be a way of getting these sorts of facts before the Supreme Court, which exists in a bubble and doesn't see the rampant bigotry in some christian communities. Justices Gorsuch and Alito think that christianity has been unfairly targeted. They need to see the other side.
5
Well-written and thought-provoking. I didn't realize how many states have various forms of discrimination of the LGBT community.
9
"The inability to get along because of fundamental differences in defining what makes us good people is one of the chief reasons for discrimination, slaughter and genocide." Genocide? Some reactions to the "Masterpiece" decision are simply overwrought. There will be other, better cases down the road that will confirm the national trend toward tolerance (or apathy). Meanwhile, wouldn't it be sensible to avoid making right-wing heroes of a baker and a clerk?
2
This baker is not a witness to the teachings of Jesus because Jesus taught: "In EVERYTHING to do unto others as you would have them do unto you." (Matthew 7:12) Jesus taught that we ought not to judge. (Matthew 7:1-3)
The baker's religious convictions were not at risk. No one was asking him to enter into a same sex marriage. Just as his right to swing his fist in the air stops at the tip of my nose, his right to his religious opinions stops at a same-sex couple's right to equal protection under the law.
I do not understand how the so-called conservative judges who claim that they read the Constitution according to the words on the page, have failed to uphold the 14th amendment.
Religious expression does not make the violation of the 14th amendment acceptable.
19
You say that Mr. Phllips believes that his religious liberty trumps everyone else's. That simply is not true; he simply wants the right to act in accordance with the dictates of his own religious conscience, and should be able to do so as long as doing so does not cause harm to others. We're not talking about hurt feeling here but about actual harm. These two men could have had that wedding cake made by dozens - perhaps hundreds - of other Colorado bakers, but chose instead to publicize their hurt feelings by going public via legal means, ending up with a Supreme Court verdict in favor of the baker, and a 7-2 verdict at that. Yet this article and at least a couple of others in today's Times find the decision abhorrent. Is it any wonder that they still cannot understand the election results of November 8, 2016?
7
Thank you, Joe!
1
Mr and Mr House, Bravo to you both. I hope you have a long and happy life together.
6
"People like the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, seem to think they are the only ones who have ownership over God and belief, and certainly over Christianity. "
When did the baker say that? It sounded to me like he was talking about private practice of his religion, including turning down Halloween cakes etc.
2
The harms Mr. House highlights are real and substantial.
What I fear is coming next -- "specialized" law practices and legal frameworks to assist in making this egregious discrimination meet the tests required to be "sincerely held" beliefs. What other forms of discrimination might also now found to be based in these beliefs?
6
Religious freedom, but only if I can impose my beliefs upon others. That is where this is going with the inclusion of the free speech issue and it's success. It can be applied to so many forms of discrimination.
6
I can assure you that shallow thinking homophobic people see this decision as their free to discriminate card. They don't understand the ruling and think it is a victory for the dsgusting elements of our society to treat people poorly. When it comes to these people deep thinking or even reading comprehension is considered a quality.
6
The trump effect. We see it here even in Hawaii and it’s very, very ugly.
2
Most Religions are not in the business of bringing people together or teaching acceptance of all "god's creatures."
And I believe the Supreme Court will go down that path as well, given the makeup of five of the Justices.
4
Just as a painter can refuse to paint a picture you want painted (probably a portrait) Jack Phlillips can refuse to design a specialty cake for you. look at the picture accompanying this article and you can see why Phllips is an artist. He has every right to refuse to do an artistic cake for you just as a painter has the right to refuse to paint your portrait.
7
You should really read Kagan's concurrence on the appropriate distinction - if the painting (or cake) is one he would make for anyone else, then he should not be allowed to refused to sell it to someone based solely on the customer's identity. But the baker or artist is always free to refuse to make something he would not make for anyone.
Making a three layer cake with some flowers on it endorses nothing, and refusing to make one for a gay couple when you'd be happy to make it for anyone else is discrimination and makes gays second class citizens.
4
And you should really read the Thomas opinion which makes the opposite case.
It’s funny. If you ask a person outside of USA which is the most progressive country, chances are he will say United States where as in reality it has become regressive.
I come from India, so called under developed country but I feel confident that the most orthodox and conservative, overly religious cake baker or a sweets distributor will never refuse to serve a gay person his goods just because he doesn’t like it or opposed to it. He would not consider it to be his business.
If we go to the level of personal religious faith to deny services where do we draw a line.
Can we refuse to serve a prostitute because we don’t like her way of life. Can we refuse to serve a black person because we don’t like his life style?
Where are we going with this?
9
Eraven, where we are going is generally down the toilet while we bicker as Americans over how much we dislike each other.
2
It is unfortunate that people who appear to have not even read the Court's decision are making comments on it. The Court neither accepted nor denied the right of a baker to refuse to exercise his artistic talents on the behalf of a gay couple. It did not go into, except on the peripheral basis of reserving judgment, on the balance between the First Amendment rights of artists to not be compelled to speak against the non-discrimination rights of people of varying sexual orientations.
All it said was that the Colorado Commission had failed to act in a non-biased fashion when fining the baker. In effect, it was like a judge telling a jury that they must decide whether or not the n-word on trial was guilty. The attitude of bias against the defendant was what was the cause of the ruling, not the defendant's actions.
7
Bravo, Mr. house! Thank you!
5
What would religious conservatives faith be like if they didn't have some group to rail against and try to discriminate against?
8
There are at least a hundred cake-bakers in Denver. Nobody is depriving Mr. House of anything. Stop the self-pity and let other people worship God the way they think is right.
6
My mother's family is from Kentucky, since before the Revolutionary war. I spent several summers with my grand parents at their home in Kentucky, not far from Berea. I remember from at least four decades ago an openly gay business owner on the town square. He was an accepted, respected, valued member of the community, just like any other businessman. His enemy was Walmart. The people of Kentucky are, or were, remarkably tolerant of the variability of human nature. I even noticed that there was not much racial tension between blacks and whites, compared to other locales.
John McCain was correct when he characterized charlatans like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell as agents of intolerance. Nationally distributed media has enabled these fifth columnists to insinuate their insidious message among anyone who has a television, and now, internet access.
I seem to recall that there existed a certain amount of religious fervor in the communities where at least two mass murders occurred, Columbine and Virginia Tech. Religion is such a sacred subject, hands off, for the media but I wonder if anyone has dared to examine the part that "religious" intolerance played in precipitating these massacres.
3
That's the point. Haters gotta hate, unless they are no longer socially acceptable. Then, they will keep it at home, with their Guns and white sheets. Seriously.
6
The emphasis missing in the comments so far (12) is that on the word "public." When you hang out a shingle and open your doors to the "public," you do not get to define who constitutes "the public." Although it's admittedly tricky to make comparisons to Nazi Germany, the fact is that in that culture, certain groups were deemed to be less than full members of "the public." They could be denied service--and employment--on the basis of the group they belonged to. They were denied the full rights that "legitimate" members of "the public" were entitled to. History shows where that led.
We see evidence all around us--this is just one instance--that in the United States, some people feel it is their right to determine that certain groups are not fully members of "the public" that a public business is open to serve. It doesn't have to be religious belief that these people see as conferring this power. For that matter, I could profess a religious objection to redheaded people.
No, the larger principle isn't what gives me the right to define "the public" to suit me. It's that such a right cannot be allowed to stand. And yes, it would be nice if people realized the importance of this principle without laws to enforce it. But I am not naive enough to think that without laws to jump-start acceptance, my racist parents and others like them would have "naturally" begun to recognize the shared humanity of their black neighbors. Do not just dream. Fight.
16
All my gay friends, and myself, are well-off, live privileged lives and suffer virtually no discrimination.
1
One China, they're spending their mental capital developing new metals and a space programs. We're fixated on cakes. You can guess who's going to dominate the next couple of centuries.
6
There are several generalisation that need to be made
more specific and I am suprised that a NY Times editor
did not demand them.
The two country clerks who fled - do we know exactly why
they fled ?
Evangelical Christians do not believe that Gays are not
worthy of God's love, no one is more worthy than anyone
else, we are all sinners redeemed by Jesus Christ.
The two workers who were fired in Kentucky - more explanation is needed.
In actuality anyone and everyone can be refused a rental
property - they renter just says "no" or I have rented the place or I did not like what your references said. If you are
renting you probably don't have the money to hire a lawyer.
Mr. Phillips has not, to my knowledge, said anything
deragoratory about Gays, just that he does not want to
be any part of a Same-Gender Marriage which the First
Amendment permits. Mr. Phillips has not claimed ownership over Christianity, he quietly was minding his own business,
figurtively and literally, when the couple sued him.
Mr. House, your conscience tells you that there is nothing
immoral about your sexuality - likewise -please allow Mr. Phillips to follow his conscience in how he runs his business.
That is the actual meaning of toleration and why we have
the First Amendment.
8
The other assertion the author made that should be investigated as disingenuous hyperbole is that he can be denied rent in 38 states just because he's gay. We all know that many states still have laws on the books that are not enforced but remain there through a lack of legal 'housecleaning'. I'm sure that since Obergefell there are still states that define marriage as between a man and a woman in their laws but not in practice.
Can someone please put out an app that lists all the bigoted businesses so that we may avoid them?
9
During the civil rights struggle (and yes, I know it is not over) the courts were not afraid to hurt the feelings of bigots.
Now the courts demand we as a society respect a man who thinks of Halloween as diabolical.
No, Halloween is cute, maybe commercial. And the baker can go to any ridiculous church he wishes. But how is God's name can we construe BAKING A CAKE as intersecting with the right to worship as you choose? Oh - money is not speech either!
6
Score one for the American Taliban, er evangelicals. If you don’t want the camel’s nose further into your tent start voting against them.
10
This whole case seems to have been politically disastrous for the pro-gay marriage movement. I've read news essay after essay declaring that losing this one would be a catastrophe for gay rights. Why pick a fight in which you have everything to lose and nothing to gain? This lawsuit seems to have been conceived in an ivory tower that doesn't see Republican majorities in Congress and state legislatures, and thinks it has the power now to force a scorched-earth destruction of all opposition. Whatever you think of the rights and wrongs of the issue, that's not very realistic or wise.
What's equally self-defeating is the belief that such a crushing of the opposition is necessary. Why exactly, again, is the inability to get a certain wedding cake in Colorado going to destroy society? Mr. House's opinion piece is very articulately written, but it boils down to an argument that anything less than getting his way 110% would hurt his feelings.
5
Thank you for stating the obvious to those who kept insisting on the "narrow" decision yesterday. However "narrow" it was voted toward making a group of citizens less than equal
10
Maybe a government commission should not disparage, and then completely ignore, someone's religious beliefs when making a decision about civil rights.
6
Would the Supreme Court have ruled similarly about interracial marriage? There are some who similarly cherry pick the Bible to justify their racism.
2
There is a big difference between the state, as a public entity, wholesale prohibiting same sex and/or interracial marriage and the state forcing a private citizen to do an act (or risk putting them out of business) because of his or her religious beliefs.
I agree with Justice Kagan's position on this matter - remember our "wise Latina" on the court?
How many people who are up in arms about this decision have actually taken the time to familiarize themselves with her opinion on the case? Not many, judging by the comments.
Even Silas House, who has written this very emotional article, doesn't seem to be at all familiar with the logic of the nearly unanimous decision.
5
Kagan's Latina? Learn sumthin new everday, I do.
2
Like everything else in the public sphere, if it can’t be shrunken down to the level of fitting on a bumper sticker we can’t be interested and if we are, we want it explained in 50 words or less.
1
Read Ginsburg's dissent. Then you will understand logic. The tyranny of the majority, as in 7-2, does not mean it is correct. Kagan probably thought making a pact with the devil is expedient in the current political climate, where a finding against the baker would probably have riled up "Trump's" intolerant base and led to all sorts of new "religious freedom" laws that would have been even worse.
In any case the "logic" seems to be that this is "narrow". But I will not hold my breathe that fundament christian extremists will say to themselves "refrain from intolerance, refrain from treating LGBT as third class citizens". Because the truth is they will take this ruling and run with it. The door is now ajar.
2
The Jack Phillips Cake Quiz
Who gets a 3-tiered custom wedding cake?
A straight Hollywood actress for her fifth marriage to a bisexual Hollywood actor for his third marriage?
A nonreligious straight couple who will get married at a Unitarian Church?
A straight Goth couple who will have a satanic-themed wedding?
A straight Jewish couple who don’t believe that Christ is the Son of God?
A straight black couple who will have a Santeria wedding?
A gay couple who are devout Christians and never missed a Sunday at church?
A non-believing trans man who will marry a Christian trans woman in a nondenominational chapel?
A straight Muslim man and a straight Muslim women who will marry in a mosque?
A straight atheist man and a straight atheist woman who will get married at the beach by a justice of the peace?
A straight Wiccan woman who will marry a straight Episcopalian man at a blended wedding ceremony with Wiccan and Christian elements?
74
Why can't Heather let Jack Philips decide for himself for whom he bakes. Should Jack travel from Denver to San Diego to dictate how Heather lives her life?
1
Let's agree that not EVERYONE agrees. That's why there are two (or more) political parties and 325 million opinions.
2
I think that's a given, but some disagreements impact others inequitably and it's important to cultivate an awareness that what you see appropriate for triteness, may mean something else entirely to others. This isn't a partisan issue to the gay man or woman, or to those family and friends who love them. This is their quality of life and how they are treated by society, legally or otherwise.
14
Yes, that's why we have a constitution. And laws. Can we at least agree on that?
5
This case is different because we're so right. No one else's opinion is legitimate.
RE: "how do we get along with other people when our definitions of being a good person are in direct opposition?"
Really the question should be how do we get along with other people when our definitions of being a good person are arbitrary?
Those who claim a good person is not someone who is gay or transgender, or black, or what ever because they can find a passage in the Bible turns a complete blind eye to all the other things the Bible (or other book) defines as a good person.
The Christians who acclaim Trump and acclaim him for his wealth because it proves him to be smart and good person are in direct contradiction with the teachings of Jesus. Ditto for his lying. And cheating on his wives. It's all there for Trump and many more. Yet, somehow they are "good" people Salias and you are not.
This is where I can find no common ground and support for those who claim they must discriminate against people for some characteristic that the Bible requires them to (in contradiction to warnings about doing God's job) while ignoring those things which are featured much more heavily in Bible in others.
18
"How do we...?"
"Do unto others..." without specifying who the "others" are in any way.
4
It would be helpful if spokespersons for Christian denominations that do not share the belief that homosexuality is sinful would speak out strongly and receive media coverage that would get attention. There is very little in the Bible concerning this issue; in the Old Testament it is listed in the same way as proscription against mixing meat and milk foods. For Paul in Romans, homosexual practices are included with a long list of other failures by those who, according to him, have ignored clear evidence of God's existence. Look at Romans 1:28 to see how many of us are guilty. In the Gospels, Jesus doesn't address the issue; why has it become so important to many evangelical Christians? Another question: when did it become the business of believers to take on responsibility for what they regard as someone else's sin? What about "Judge not"? How is their right to believe compromised in any way?
37
As to your last point? I refer you to 1 Timothy 5:20
“Them that sin rebuke before all, that others also may fear.”
I'm glad you brought this up. If Christians were to focus on the sins that the New Testament actually prioritizes, they'd be going after people who are greedy, oppressive, neglectful towards the poor, abusive, vain, hypocritical, etc. Considering how prevalent homosexuality was in the Greco-Roman culture of his time, I'm pretty sure Jesus would have mentioned it at least once if it was something that mattered to him. For those still reconciling their Christianity with support for the LGBTQ community, I would recommend Matthew Vines' book "God and the Gay Christian."
4
Quite simply Jesus was not silent on the issue - he was clear that "from the beginning" marriage was between a man and a woman. Jesus also evangelized to the Jews and there was no question of homosexuality or ssm being something the Jews of his day believed was acceptable, so therefore no need to address it.
When evangelization spread beyond the Jews, you see St Paul address the sinfulness of homosexuality to the Greco-Roman world who did have this practice.
How do we ensure a non-conforming person's quality of life is not damaged by the whims of culture warrior policing in the community, while still respecting First Amendment rights?
12
That is the question, and perhaps the courts are not always the best places to sort these kinds of disputes out.
3
We do things like the Commerce Clause, which describes an enumerated power listed in the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 3) to deal with discrimination in public accommodations. So it's been dealt with, much to the confusion of 7 justices on SCOTUS as of late.
6
Matthew,
Using the Commerce Clause to deal with
discrimination in public accomodations is
such a Judicial over-reach that it become
laughable.
Just use the 14th amendment to achieve
that legal goal.
Upon finding out the cakemaker would not make me a cake, and the reasoning behind his decision, my response would have been to quietly walk out of the store, happy to have discovered that in fact, I really didn't want his cake anymore. The End.
38
Dear Joseph,
I might have decided against the cake as well. But what happens when someone is denied seating at a restaurant, or a hotel reservation, or a house purchase, or admission to a hospital or school because someone else is uncomfortable with how you look or what you believe. Jim Crow laws in the South were also supported by claims of religious belief.
I have decided to convert to the ancient Aztec religion. I demand the right to periodically rip the beating heart out of another human being because I sincerely believe that the sun will not continue to rise unless I perform this religious rite and duty. Do you think that my sincere religious belief is more important than the rights of my victims?
The problem for me is not principles, convictions, or beliefs but the use of religion to shut down all debate. If someone believes that a religious principle should inform policy then convince us with logic and evidence or metaphor or allegory or something other than "well that's what I believe and you don't get to challenge it." And I won't challenge it at all until the moment you ask me to live with the consequences.
182
Young people who identify as LGBT are at far greater risk for suicide than youth generally (about 5 times as likely to have attempted suicide as heterosexual youth, according to the Trevor Project). There are many places in the United States where such youth are likely to be socially rejected and isolated. This tragically sometimes includes rejection by family. When we believe our religious convictions constitute a right to reject the LGBT members of our communities we put more youth at risk.
23
I share your view and probably would have quietly walked out of the store.
1
Indeed. Those involved in "rights" battles, including religious rights vs LGBT rights, but also the right to play music loud vs the right to some peace of mind, the 'right' to ride one's ATV in a national park vs the right to enjoy wildlife in peace, the 'right' to do as one pleases in one's vehicle vs the right to expect safe roads where other drivers are not texting at 70 mph, always seem to forget that there are two sides to each fight.
Yes, you have the "right" to believe certain things and to live accordingly, but LGBT folks have a "right" to treated equally with other citizens in the public square. An interesting question from a Christian perspective is whether the religious right seeks a cheap way to honor its beliefs. I would say that living by one's beliefs sometimes requires great sacrifices by the believer, i.e., maybe the baker no longer does wedding cakes at all - the price of true discipleship. The right-wing, though, wants others to pay the price for their beliefs.
62
The Supreme Court basically reversed the decision to fine the baker and force his business to take certain workshops. But the Court didn't decide that he hadn't discriminated against the gay couple. The baker didn't win the case (except implicitly); the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is who lost.
The point being that if the owner of this or any other Christian-Nationalist-owned bakery decides this decision gives them the right to turn away gay couples, they are going to quickly find themselves complained against (again). Only this time, you can bet the the government officials deciding the case are going to say nothing that might be construed as "hostile to religion", while reaching the same result as before, because it's what must occur with respect to religiously neutral, generally applicable laws like Colorado's anti-discrimination statute.
So it will be interested to see if Mr. Phillips stops making wedding cakes or not. If he does, your point stands. If not, he'll be back at the Supreme Court in another three or four years. Regardless, some other clueless Christian business will with 100% certainty use this decision to discriminate somewhere, so the issue will be back before the courts very soon.
74
Amen.
This decision is being misinterpreted on both sides. I think you've got it right.
Where did anybody say that the owner was "Christian-Nationalist"? I just read that he was a religious conservative . That's not the same thing. And I suspect that he was perfectly aware that it was a nuanced decision.
One definition of bigotry is an inability to make fine distinctions.
And by the way, government officials need to be very careful what they say during important cases. I read that one reason abortionists won Roe vs Wade was that a hayseed lawyer defending the Texas law told a coarse joke about rape, right when the judges were weighing justifications for abortion.
At one point, people who claimed to be Christians preached black people were not quite human and justified slavery as the Will of God. If this "belief" were resurrected in any religious community, would it have the right to openly discriminate against members of the black community?
53
"If this belief were resurrected"? If? Resurrected?
I'm afraid I've got some bad news for you re. white Evangelicals.
1
What about my right to freedom from religion?
78
The First Amendment pretty clearly offers both affirmative freedom to practice one's religion and negative freedom not to be forced into any state sponsored establishment of religion. Since these will sometimes come into conflict, we have litigation, such as the Masterpiece case here discussed. The framers of the Constitution expected BOTH prongs of the religion clause to be meaningful and to endure - so the goal of banning faith based actions in the public sphere is just as bad an idea as the idea of enshrining one religion as an official one. To me, Phillips in this case was obviously being scorned and mocked on the record by government officials based on his sincerely held religious belief. That is not my America and I am pleased with the 7-2 ruling in the case.
10
It's like abortion, frank. You are free not to go to church.
You are not free to be a government official and in your official capacity discriminate against Christians because they are Christians. Note that the CHRC had previously ruled it was OK for gay / progressive bakers to refuse to produce cakes with Christian messages on them, even though Colorado public accommodations law prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion. That sure looks like the CHRC was picking good and bad belief systems (gays good, Christians bad).
1
The comments made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission about religion were truthful if challenging. Has the legal system here in America decided that religion in this country cannot be critiqued for any reason ever. I wonder what Justice Kennedy would think of Benjamin Franklin's statement that... "A lighthouse is more beneficial to mankind than religion has ever been." I suppose that Justice Kennedy would find the comments of our patriot founding Fathers to be discriminatory.
Next case: the baker refuses to make a cake for an inter-racial couple. Or, people who wear MAGA caps. It's amazing what religious beliefs can cover, isn't it?
84
It is worth noting that at the time of Phillips refusal to bake the cake (2012), there was no right of same sex marriage in Colorado. Part of what makes the case hard is that Colorado in 2012 SIMULTANEOUSLY held the position that there was no such thing as marriage between two men and that it was unlawful to refuse to decorate a wedding cake for the wedding of two men because that would discriminate against the men. That is a tough circle to square and the Supreme Court, by a big majority, ultimately reached the right decision in this specific case.
10
There's also no such thing as a "wedding cake"..... There are pretty 3 (or more) tiered cakes that can be eaten at a wedding reception... or a birthday party.... or a bar mitzvah or an anniversary or just because you want a fancy expensive cake. The "wedding cake" as we know it has only been part of the party since 1882 - It's not a religious symbol... it's a lasting imitation of Victorian era royal frivolity...
Face it... the baker refused to serve gay men something he would have sold to anyone else because of a prejudice. He discriminated and he violated Colorado law.
1
i hope that the non-religious retaliate with overt dicrimination against all who "witness" or engage in other behaviors. open contempt for theocracy1
9
I think a better retaliation would be for gays getting married to boycott cake.
One really nice thing about the Episcopal Church is the size of its tent. Makes me very happy to be under it.
27
" Mr. Pence’s desire to discriminate while cloaked in his religion made him an evangelical hero, holding the second-highest office in the land."
'' Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.'' Mathew 22:39.
Who first took the Jesus out of Christianity?
21
Lawrence: I don't know who first took Jesus out of Christianity, but apparently it was a long time ago. A highly esteemed ninth century Muslim philosopher said he greatly admired Jesus and many of his teachings, but not the large number of Christians who ignored much of Jesus' guidance, practiced their own perverted (meaning mangled) version instead, and spoiled a good thing.
1
So if people can shun, fire or refuse to do business with gay people because of their religious beliefs, I guess we have Shariah law in this country.
124
The baker was happy to do business with gay people. He wouldn't sell anyone a cake for a gay wedding whether the purchaser was gay or straight.
5
That is a leap of logic the size of the Grand Canyon.
5
That doesn't make sense. Shariah is a Moslem law code that compels certain things, whereas this case concerns what a believer is allowed to do.
My wife and I have been contemplating a move to North Carolina to continue treatment of her stage 4 metastatic colon cancer and to be close to my sister as a support system. The fact that we may not be able to rent an apartment because we are gay really scares us. We live in the Northeast like a "normal" married couple. We just don't know if we're up for a fight, just to live in an apartment; not while we fight for her life.
69
Please come. Don't judge us all by that despicable bathroom bill (which, incidentally, cost McCrory his governorship). There is a vibrant LGBT community here, and you will be welcomed.
6
My thoughts go out to you and your wife during this battle. I wish the best for you both. And yes, you shouldn't have to worry about basic needs during this time.
7
What a terrible thing to have to worry about when your real concern is the health of your wife.
I wish you all the best and hope that your wife gets the treatment that she needs.
Message from SCOTUS to all activists: pick your fight!
11
Quite true apparently - they're happy to help corporations, but not to fight bigotry.
It's a tragic message.
2
"Homophobia abounds in most major religions, but in our country, fundamentalist Christians have certainly cornered the market when it comes to putting forth legislation to hem in L.G.B.T. people. The Masterpiece case is perhaps the most famous example, but it’s one of many."
Just want to point out that there was no anti-gay legislation in the Masterpiece case - state authority was on the side of the gay couple. Let's keep our facts straight.
5
While I wish Mr. Phillips did not have his anti-gay marriage beliefs, he does have his rights to his beliefs. But per Professor Robert P. George, in today's NYT, he had made clear to the two men who requested the cake that he would sell them goods off-the-shelf and that he would design cakes for them for special occasions (birthdays, job promotions, etc.) that did not violate his sincerely held Christian beliefs.
16
I think that nails it. He did not allow himself to be compelled to write or draw something he did not believe in. I would have argued that writing and drawing are a form of speech, and that no one can be compelled to say something that conflicts with their beliefs.
12
Such an argument was part of the position taken, that it attempted to compel artistic expression which case law has found to be speech.
2
Will you agree when someone uses the same argument to refuse to make a cake for an interracial couple?
How many states can landlords legally discriminate against straight people? How many states do landlords generally and often discriminate against gay people? Answers: virtually all and none.
The fact remains that gays face little to no discrimination. Gay discrimination is more like finding a unicorn. Personal reactions are different, but that is life.
6
Spoken like a true hetero who has never had anything happen to them in their life because of who they are. I've had a broom thrown at me for holding hands with my boyfriend and that was in a city. We don't hold hands when we're in any place in the country. And don't kid yourself, hon. There are plenty of landlords who won't even let us in the door. So thanks for your condescension.
4
"The fact remains that gays face little to no discrimination. Gay discrimination is more like finding a unicorn."
Until 2015 we could not be legally married. So your theory of unicorns is ridiculous. Every gay person has experienced or been subjected to discrimination and many still do. And this ruling means we will have many more opportunities to be discriminated against.
As to your "Personal reactions are different, but that is life" add-on, I don't know what you mean. But is sounds a lot like we outta just put up and shut up in your opinion. Am I wrong?
2
In my book gay marriage doesn't count as discrimination but as a redefinition of marriage. You have to admit, gays have to work hard to find someone who substantially discriminates against them. Gays lead normal lives now, but for some that is not enough. Society must positive assert gays are normal.
Being a bad tenant and gay doesn't entitle you to say you were discriminated against because you are gay.
The widespread legal discrimination against the L.G.B.T. community amounts to religious Jim Crow. And, like the original race-based Jim Crow, it is psychologically harmful (see footnote 8 in Brown v. the Topeka Board of Education Supreme Court unanimous decision) and should be illegal. Religious tolerance lies at the heart our democracy, as enshrined in our Constitution, not religious intolerance. We have been a nation that has struggled with our darkest fears for centuries, and this is just the latest manifestation that we have much more work to do to be truly Christian and put civil rights over religious rights and honor the creed that "all men [and women] are created equal."
9
PW,
Footnote 8 in B vs TBE has long been discredited.
African American children don't need to be around
"White' children in order to learn, they need and
needed decent educational facilities.
It is discrimination to think that "White" means
better.
I'm anxiously awaiting the day when Evangelical "Christians" become an irrelevant voting bloc. How sad that people think their faith in myths and fairy tales entitles them to special privileges and rights while the scream persecution at those who don't share their same beliefs. I keep imagining what a better world this would be absent religion.
48
RHD,
Without religion there are no firm moral anchors.
The secular society will do whatever is expedient
as you will find out when your notice to show up
at the Euthanasia Center arrives at your door.
4
"I'm anxiously awaiting the day when Evangelical "Christians" become an irrelevant voting bloc. "
Sadly,46% Americans Believe In Creationism According To Latest Gallup Poll http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/05/americans-believe-in-creationism
Forty six percent Americans believed in creationism, 32 percent believed in theistic evolution and 15 percent believed in evolution without any divine intervention. The data shows that the percent of Americans who believe in creationism has increased slightly by 2 percent over the last 30 years. The percent of Americans who believe in evolution has also increased by 6 percent over the last 30 years.
Most educated people today see the natural world through the lens of science rather than the Bible. That shift in perspective is largely complete outside the United States,
The Gallup poll indicates that more than 100 million Americans are not ready to abandon the biblical understanding of the natural world, insisting that the Earth is but a few thousand years old and that humans were created in their present forms.
A substantial majority of these Creationists self-identified as Republicans , some are in Congress.
4
Evangelical "Christians" WERE an irrelevant voting bloc until the 1970s, when the government rewrote abortion law and removed it from democratic control to keep anyone from undoing their changes. It was an unprecedented attack on democracy and caused a huge backlash.
As one shrewd political observer said at the time: "Cause have effects".
I do hope that MLK's arc of justice soon finds its way all people, regardless of their sexual preference or gender orientation.
I fear, however, that the rise of the power of religious fundamentalists, here and around the world, in parallel with the rise of fascism, suggests that the arc is stuttering in mid flight.
10
This is the kind of human experience, told in detail and with a vivid message about the effect of that experience on real people, that seems foreign to the sequestered Justices on the Supreme Court.
Not one of those in the conservative majority seems capable of putting himself in the position of another person who has faced lifelong ostracism and discrimination, and even violence, just because of who they are.
And in this latest, unforgivable ruling, even two of the liberal Justices have blinded themselves to the consequences of their decision, consequences of which are all too apparent to the writer.
The Justices' solicitude for religion is misplaced in what is supposed to be a secular state. The defeat of bigotry depends not only on the victory of justice over injustice, but the victory of reason over religious superstition.
14
1. The decision is all about forcing a person to make something the person does not want to make.
2. I understand and agree with the principle of businesses needing to be open to all customers.This is about commissioning a piece which is different. IMO, a person can refuse a commission.
3. I do not understand why people having a special occasion would want to force someone to do a job they do not want to do.
8
Gratis if the baker had said "I don't want to do that", or "I can't do that" and left it at that there probably wasn't anything they could have done and no one could force him to bake anything.
It was that he went on to say I can't do it because you are gay people getting married is where they thought that they had a case of discrimination.
Jerry, Jerry, Jerry,
Calm down.
It was very narrow ruling.
Dealing with government employees who expressed
a disdain for Mr. Phillips beliefs.
Thus the ruling is correct, constitutional and even
forgivable.
We are not a secular state.
Reason led to the Nazi's and Communism.
1
So if the cake baker was an atheist, and the people he refused service to were Christians, that would be okay? Would Christians support that?
50
This is not what atheism is about. By and large, atheists are simply disinterested in "Christian" belief, not openly and antagonistically and aggressively hostile to it. Most of us who are "non believers" simply want to be left alone and to have "freedom FROM religion", something supposedly guaranteed... we're supposed to be allowed to believe or NOT believe as we choose.
23
The point is, could I, an atheist running a cake business, refuse to write Christian fairy tales on a cake against my deeply held beliefs?
Tworunners,
If he is following his conscience.
Yes.
1
This piece is just part of the avalanche of anti-Christian hate rhetoric that has been inextricable from the Jack Phillips' case. This case is not about "liberating" or "respecting" gay people. It's about hating and fomenting hatred against Christians. I was active in gay rights in Indiana, just north of Kentucky. For ten years, the majority of our gay rights meetings were held in Christian churches, and many of our members were also active in churches. One of our most active members was himself a Lutheran minister. When those arguing for gay rights give up their irrational hatred of Christians and Christianity, they will be benefit themselves and their movement.
16
My animus towards Christians echos that of the Dalai Lama, that Christians are so un-like their Christ. Treat others as you would be treated. This comment is all about Christians' "right" not to do that. I do not think Christians embracing their Bible as an excuse for discrimination emulates the life of your Christ at all. In fact, to my way of thinking, 12 guys following a charismatic leader for years speaks to the opposite of what you embrace.
13
I have reread this column and for the life of me I cannot find a single instance where the writer exhibited an, ".......irrational hatred of Christians and Chistianity", or any sort of hatred toward his own professed Christian faith. So I feel compelled to ask you: What are you talking about?
41
How about acting like a "Christian" for a change.
3
In the past, I've felt deep sympathy for individuals who are at risk of being fired for their sexual orientation.
This morning, for the first time, I feel something different.
If you can't support the right of a cake maker to put what he wants on his cakes without government interference, how am I supposed to get upset about infringements on your freedom.
Gay rights used to be about protecting the right of individuals to live their personal lives as they choose. That was something I could get passionate about.
Prosecuting a cakemaker for his religious beliefs is the very opposite of freedom. Count me out.
29
So I suppose you're ok with a cake-maker who refuses to sell a mixed-race couple a cake on the grounds of his firm "religious" belief that god did not intend for the races to intermarry (despite the Supreme Court's ruling in Loving v. Virginia). I'm sure Mitch McConnell (with his wife, Elaine Chao, who is of Asian-American) is ok with that.
31
No one is telling what he can or can't put on a cake, they are telling him that if he sells wedding cakes he must sell them to all customers. Would you support his refusal to sell a cake o a mixed race couple?
29
Lucy - i believe the cakemaker was willing to sell them anything in the store and he had "off the shelf" wedding cakes for sale.
What he would not do is artistically crate and craft a special wedding cake for them. I believe that as an artist he has that right just as a painter can refuse to do a portrait of you.
1
Mr. House should consider this perspective. The Supreme Court decision declaring state bans against gay marriage unconstitutional was a judicial usurpation. Marriage and all family laws have always, and indisputably, been the Constitutional prerogative of the states, thus of the people and legislatures of the states. The decision was the equivalent of an amendment of the Constitution, like Roe v Wade.
People have long memories about such things.
No, the case was not the equivalent of the 14th amendment decisions respecting the civil rights of African-Americans.
7
And slavery used to be legal in all the states. And the prerogative of each one individually.
Until is was abolished in all the states. All of them.
The writer is entitled to the same consideration for gays.
The 14th Amendment should do exactly that.
12
Roy Rogers: you're ignoring the fact that allowing gay people to marry has no effect on your right to marry. It's no burden on you to give others the same rights you have. If you think that the existence of gay people is an affront to you, then that's a problem you have with God, or with nature--not with the courts or with gay people.
24
Should (perhaps) but didn't.
It's wonderful that you found this moment of peace at your wedding. Everyone wants to be accepted for who they are. But it isn't always something that can happen in an instant. A commentator in a related article wrote the following:
"To many, gay marriage is a cultural shift that requires a change in the mind, heart and spirit. " I am one of those many. The word "husband" still sticks in my throat when I say it in reference to a man's spouse. Why is that? Is it just that I am bigoted or biased? Maybe. To me, the whole idea of it just feels very strange. I think that to attempt to force people to accept something and ignore their discomfort is never going to give you the kind of true acceptance you are looking for. It will only be a very superficial acceptance, not whole, heartfelt or real, or, most importantly, lasting. The image of male and female uniting together is a very powerful one, as it is a metaphor for the uniting of metaphysical opposites both in the universe and within oneself. This I think is one reason why same-sex marriage, whether it is two males or two females, seems incomplete to me, and probably to many others. As the quote above suggests, it represents a massive shift in a very fundamental archetype. It doesn't meant that it's impossible, but I believe that you should realize that a) resistance to it is not something personally directed towards you, and b) real change in the culture is going to take a long time.
9
I'm reminded of M. L. King's simple question: "How long?"
Your discomfort is nothing compared to that of those who every day are subjected to discrimination.
Asking those who experience it to wait just favors bigotry over justice.
12
Consider that using the word "slave" in reference to another human being sticks in some people's throats. This wasn't always the case. You're right—things can take time.
5
Spare me David, this is 2018 for goodness sake. Can you say "Partner"?? Go ahead, try to say it without fainting. Metaphor? Get over yourself, if this feels "strange". Love is Love and not dictated or 'blessed ' by any Church, this is a civil matter, with Civil Rights. Other serious vulgarities abound in this 'Society' , same sex unions and marriage is not one of them.
10
I agree Masterpiece is not harmless: The equivocation in the case continues to perpetuate a faux right to "marriage" by persons naturally unqualified to marry while threatening the real right of Americans, guaranteed by the very first right enumerated in the First Amendment. Time to find a replacement for Anthony Kennedy.
6
Thank you for your bigotry.
2
I’m glad that you were able to get married. I remember covering a lesbian couple getting a marriage license at my local courthouse on the day the Supreme Court decision was announced. The court clerk was professional, if a little uneasy. The women were jubilant and said this was one less injustice. They were also black in a largely white state, which probably added to their feelings about the day. I later spoke to several other happy gay couples who planned to get married. One of my friends, who is gay, posted his wedding photos on Facebook the following year. But I also know of extremely devout people, including a judge, who could not in good conscience endorse gay marriage. The judge stopped performing marriages entirely. I’m sure there are some cake decorators of my acquaintance who might refuse to decorate a wedding cake for gay marriage, as N.D. allows. I think the law must allow for expressions of conscience like this, provided there are other places the couple can go for service. Let the cake decorator, florist, judge, etc, cordially refer the gay couple to someone else willing to perform the service. The Supreme Court ruled rightly in this case and hopefully will further clarify how freedom of expression applies in these circumstances.
10
"Conscience" is a cynical word to use when trying to justify bigotry.
Conscience refers one's own behavior and sense of responsibility.
It is completely inappropriate as an excuse for harming others.
26
The Court did not rule on the main question of freedom of expression. The Court said the baker was not treated fairly and without animous in the lower court. The main question was left for another and another case.
8
"Let the cake decorator, florist, judge, etc, cordially refer the gay couple to someone else willing to perform the service."
As so many people keep pointing out in response to the many comments like that, would you say that to African Americans wanting to eat at the lunch counter? This is not an answer to discrimination and if the people you refer to cannot "in good conscience" do their jobs for certain segments of society, they are free to quit their jobs. Their freedom to practice their religion, such as it is, is not being trampled upon.
4
Shield or no shield, I'd like to know exactly how the author proposes that Mr Philips' religious beliefs be respected.
This seems to be the crux of the SCOTUS decision.
And the judges were intelligent in their handling of this case in this way.
15
Lola:
In relation to racial & gender discrimination, the answer has usually been that laws regarding commerce do not respect a right to discriminate. Legally, I don't know what basis there would be for treating sexual orientation differently. And philosophically, I don't think we want to respect the prejudice, whether it wears a religious cloak or not.
6
In a nation where you can't enter a town with 50 inhabitants without bumping into three churches, and where each self-proclaimed "reverend" demands tax exemption because the voices in his head say he is ordained by god, and where every town hall starts off with some sort of prayer, and our money is engraved with praise of deities, I think religion is in pretty good shape politically to defend itself. The most unfortunate part of yesterday's court decision is when Kennedy argued that the Colorado commission showed hostility to religion. You know, it is funny. It isn't okay for the state to be hostile to a discriminatory bake, but it is perfectly okay for religion to be hostile to gays.
33
Mr. Philips is free to worship in the church of his choosing, the religion of his choosing. He can conduct his personal life as his religion dictates, but even that is subject to legal constraints, e.g. polygamy and use of peyote are not protected rights. However, if he chooses to enter the secular marketplace, he must treat all customers without discrimination.
It is already settled law that religion cannot be used to discriminate against black people. Thus there is really no question about LGBTQ people either. The baker is wrong and when the right case comes along the Court will so rule.
5
If I could I would start a business that addressed everyone's need to have a wedding with all the trimmings regardless of who they were, what they believed, or who they love. It would seem a wonderful business opportunity to offer services that other people, like Mr. Phillips, seem to attach un-necessary baggage to . I find it disturbing that ANY christian is judgmental enough to refuse to do something so simple as bake a cake. It is judgmentalism that is contrary to the Christian ethic. You are supposed to love everyone even those who are your enemies. You do not have to support them but then you op out of making money off the the services they buy. I was an RN for 45 years, never, ever, refused to care for anyone based on any difference or social issue. Did I always find it easy(?), no, but I saw everyone as a human in need and treated them as such. Would seem to me that in business one ought to do the same. Phillips has failed to understand one of the basic tenets of his religion, but then maybe his "religion" is not really about being christian but more about being judgmental and exclusionary. Time for so-called-christains to quit being judgmental and act like Christians. Time for seeing the "human" and not excluding those not like ourselves and instead embracing them. I am too old to embark on a second career but I can honestly say that any business that does not jump on such an opportunity and open their doors to anyone who wants service is passing up a real deal.
102
I like your statement "I find it disturbing that ANY Christian is judgmental enough to refuse to do something so simple as bake a cake. It is judgmentalism that is contrary to the Christian ethic. You are supposed to love everyone even those who are your enemies. I was having a discussion with a person who feels as if they are very religious. She agreed with the court and while I am sure I disagree, I certainly felt uncomfortable with it. What he was doing seems so un-Christian. By the way like that word judgmentalism.
10
linda fish,
Not sure anyone needs to have a wedding with all
the trimmings. It might be more Christian to have a
simple ceremony and give the money that would have
been spent on a fancier wedding to the poor.
It was not a matter of just baking a cake for Mr. Phillips
he spends time on decorating the cake to the level
of excellence that he demands of himself.
Mr. Phillips believes that Same Gender Couples
cannot enter into a Marriage.
Is it not judgemental of your to find fault with how
Mr. Phillips lives out, in a non-violent manner, his
religion and follows his duly informed conscience ?
I presume, and correct me if I a wrong, that you would
not make a wedding cake for a wedding of a ten year
old girl and the man who raped her, she being
forced into the wedding because it saves the family
dignity.
The law of supply and demand offers a simple way
to deal with those who restrict their businesses.
Mr. Phillips loss is someone else's gain.
No need for the Government to get involved
in such matters.
Denver has more than 200 bakeries. Mr. Phillips' store had, on the shelf, ready-made wedding cakes.
Millions are still negatively affected by the "Great Recession" .. and cake is the major issue?
Khrushchev was right -- we will destroy ourselves.
This lovely essay puts a very human face on the constitutional and legal questions.
While I have empathy for the author's struggle to reconcile his faith with the bigotry he experiences, I wish him eventual freedom from both the bigotry and the evangelical faith.
Neither have a useful place in a truly equitable society.
57
I agree with Mr. House that many people use religion as a cover for their disdainful attitude towards gay people.
Re: jobs: it's very disturbing if people can be fired simply for being gay, but that is not the principle issue there: most people in this country can get fired for no reason at all. That is the norm in most states. That's horrible. The solution is not to protect gay people only. People should not be treated as disposable, and corporations as sacrosanct.
Nevertheless, the US feels free to lecture the world about human rights.
98
"Re: jobs: it's very disturbing if people can be fired simply for being gay, but that is not the principle issue there: most people in this country can get fired for no reason at all."
Yes, too few people know how little employment protection most people have, but there are big exceptions - you can't be fired for your sex, race, color, national origin, or religion. While I totally agree that there should be broader protections for one's livelihood, it is a real smack in the face that sexual orientation isn't included in the federally protected categories.
6
Some people are uncomfortable around people who are "different". I get that and know that some, for " your own good" want you to look a certain way, worship a certain way, vote a certain way, marry a certain way etc. I just prefer to know in advance plans to deny services to "unacceptable" people. No matter how good this master baker is, I would be uncomfortable getting my heterosexual wedding cake from him. Under his warped thinking since baking a cake means approval, so I guess buying a cake means acceptance of his views on gay marriage??? He was not asked to approve of this marriage and probably baked plenty of cakes for heterosexual marriages doomed to fail. We should not have to live up to each other's standards, but simply interact politely when offering and receiving services.
88
I agree; all such purveyors should publish on the doors of their businesses who they will and won't sell to ... then potential customers can decide if they want to do business with them.
16
The baker wasn’t refusing service to anyone, he just would not be compelled to undertake an artistic act. Courts have time abs again found art to be protected speech. Compound that with the fact he chose not to create art for these customers based on his religious views which are another protected area.
8
And avoid risking public humiliation...
A free society characterized by diversity works only if the differences which separate citizens do not define their interactions in the public square. In their own homes and private institutions (such as places of worship), individuals and groups may exclude those with whom they do not wish to associate.
In the marketplace, however, owners threaten the comity essential to a minimal level of social unity if they discriminate among customers for reasons associated with the sources of the community's diversity. A merchant who offers his wares for sale relies on the state to protect his property and his person, in exchange for an acceptance of the rules that govern the conduct of his business.
We no longer allow entrepreneurs to deny service to customers who differ from them ethnically, because to do so would foster tensions and conflicts harmful to the welfare of the entire society. Racists may remain in business, but their prejudices must not determine their choice of customers.
In like manner, an owner who injects her religious values into customer relations also promotes hostility among the diverse elements of society. In the public square, which includes the marketplace, we all sacrifice some of our freedom, in order to preserve peace and unity. Secular values rather than sectarian ones must prevail there. Else we risk a return to the era of religious conflict.
The ambiguous court decision did not reject this principle, which surely must eventually prevail.
84
This is such a cogent, articulate comment. Thank you.
8
Then by that reasoning, Dick's was acting immorally, at best, by refusing to sell ammo to those under 21, despite their having a legal right to purchase it. Variations in age are equally a source of the community's diversity, after all, and you stated that " owners threaten the comity essential to a minimal level of social unity if they discriminate among customers for reasons associated with the sources of the community's diversity"
When does a seller have the right to make such a decision? Was IBM acting morally when they sold the German state tabulating machines which they used in the census process in the 1930's?
While I agree with all points, SCOTUS said that the law could not force a person to make something they do not want to make. On this narrow point, I agree with SCOTUS.
However, IMO, the baker is not a very good Christian ("Do unto others....")
1
Might we turn this around a bit? How humiliating would it be for someone to be compelled by the government to participate in private activities that directly contradict their religious and personal beliefs? The Left in America doesn't want tolerance - they want submission. Bless the baker who stood his ground.
44
And yet the right seems to think that they have sole control over my reproductive destiny. Their "pro-life" stance is based on their religious tenets which directly contradict my religious and personal beliefs. The right doesn't want tolerance--they want submission.
60
You are applying an extremely broad definition of "participate," given that the baker is apt to be miles away when the ceremony happens. Is the miller who made the flour also a participant in the wedding? Is the farmer who grew the wheat a participant? The baker is not participating in the wedding; he's participating in the purchase of a cake. Does "buying a cake" count as a pillar of religious belief? No.
51
I hope the reader from Charlotte then would also agree with the freedom of speech of a baker who might refuse to bake a cake with decorative guns on it for a wedding of two NRA supporters. In other words, if the reader defends freedom of religion and speech, I trust he would defend it in any case, not just in the cases where he agrees with the religious or political message.
14
I don't think it is fair to say that Jack Phillips believes he "owns God." Because of his religious beliefs, he respectfully declined to be involved in any way with a same-sex wedding. He didn't try to dissuade other bakers from providing a cake, or block the couple in any other way. I disagree with him, and I wish the Court had gone the other way, but it is not helpful to demonize him or to describe him inaccurately. In fact, that sloppy, thoughtless denigration of religion is what got the Commission into trouble in the first place. Had they not made those negative comments, the Court might well have upheld the gay men.
27
This was the same argument used to justify discrimination against African Americans prior to the 1964 Civil Rights Act--they can eat/swim/buy shoes/live somewhere else. Often discrimination was justified on religious grounds--God's plan to separate the races. One could have argued that the Civil Rights Act violated the religious freedom of those who practiced Jim Crow laws.
9
How does a commercial baker deny service respectfully?
8
Absurd. As he believes it is his right to refuse due to his religious beliefs, so it is anyone else's right to comment on and denigrate religion.
6
In the mid 1970s a gay friend asked me if I would join him to seek an apartment in Manhattan. I was perplexed as to why he wanted my company but nonetheless joined him. It was a big awakening when we visited the apartments and many of the realtors commented that they were glad it was “a couple renting the space because most folks in that neighborhood (then known as Hell’s Kitchen) were male. I do not recall the exact word used but clearly they meant gay. Never in my 18 years did it occur to me that my gay friend would be discriminated against, or could not marry. Why? Because no one had taught me to hate. Not in the name of religion or any other reason. So a gay couple could not order a cake they wanted cause the baker didn’t like their kind. What if he were the landlord?
33
Your ignorance of gay discrimination is clearly less than your ignorance of the Holy Bible and the Christian Faith. I will try to educate you succinctly. Jesus Christ is God's only son. Jesus died on the Cross for the sins of Christians. To believe in Christ you must believe the prior and that Jesus alone is the means of entering heaven. If you love Jesus and God you will be obediant to God even unto death. Homosexuality is an abomination and a perversion of God's decree of marriage between one man and a woman. Hence it is disobedient.
The baker was compelled by an issue of faith that has been known and understood for almost two thousand years.
1
Nancy can prove an instance of discrimination. You can't prove the existence of a god.
3