WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is taking up the highly anticipated case of the Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Tuesday’s clash at the high court pits baker Jack Phillips’ First Amendment claims of artistic freedom against the anti-discrimination arguments of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and two men Phillips turned away in 2012.
The commission ruled that Phillips violated the state’s anti-discrimination law when he refused to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins.
The argument is the first involving gay rights since the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that states could not prevent same-sex couples from marrying.
The Trump administration is supporting Phillips in his argument that he can’t be forced to create a cake that violates his religious beliefs. It appears to be the first time the federal government has asked the justices to carve out an exception from an anti-discrimination law.
Protesters on both sides filled the sidewalk in front of the court, shortly before the start of the argument.
“We got Jack’s back,” Phillips’ supporters said. Backers of Craig and Mullins countered: “Love wins.”
The case’s outcome also could affect photographers and florists who have voiced objections similar to those of Phillips.
“Artists shouldn’t be forced to express what the government dictates. The commission ordered Jack to celebrate what his faith prohibits or to stop doing the work he loves. The Supreme Court has never compelled artistic expression, and doing so here would lead to less civility, diversity, and freedom for everyone, no matter their views on marriage,” Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing Phillips, said in an email.
But the American Civil Liberties Union and other rights groups that have sided with the gay couple said they fear a ruling for Phillips could allow for discrimination by a range of business owners. They said the court has never recognized what they call a constitutional right to discriminate.
“The question is whether a shop like Masterpiece Cakeshop can put up a sign in its window saying, ‘Wedding cakes for heterosexual couples only,'” ACLU deputy legal director Louise Melling said. The ACLU is representing Craig and Mullins.
All eyes will be on Justice Anthony Kennedy, whose vote often decides cases that otherwise split the court’s liberals and conservatives. The 81-year-old Kennedy is the author of the 2015 gay marriage decision and all the court’s major gay-rights rulings. At the same time, Kennedy has forcefully defended free-speech rights in his nearly 30 years as a justice.
Colorado native Neil Gorsuch also will be taking part in the most important gay rights case since he joined the Supreme Court in April.
Colorado is among only 21 states that have statewide laws barring discrimination against gays and lesbians in public accommodations.
The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 16-111, will be decided by late June.
Thinking of how this case might play out fills me with rage for the wealthy, white gay men and the carnival freaks like Milo who stumped for Trump.
While this argument does have some merit and, perhaps, should be explored on some level, my question would be where would it end, realistically? What about artisan wine? Artisan cheese? Landscaping? Home restoration (which involves varying levels of artistic interpretation and talent)? Pet grooming? The list could be quite large, theoretically – and, I suspect many in the alt-right religioso groups, that’s their intent. Be careful, Neil Gorsusch – as this might very well backfire and many otherwise nice folks in the marketplace "find (some sort of) religion, if you get my drift.
That said, we all know how this is going to coming down. Such a fucking friend to the LGBTQ community your daddy, eh, Ivanka?
Discrimination wrapped up in the mantle of “Religious Freedom” is a slippery slope. What if you’re an obese diabetic, and you go in for a refill on your insulin prescription, and the pharmacist is a biblical literalist? Would it be within his constitutional right to “Religions Freedom” to deny you your insulin because sloth and gluttony are listed in the bible as 2 of the 7 deadly sins?
1 Timothy 2:11-12: “Let a woman learn quietly with all submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet.” If a University dean invokes “Religious Freedom” can he not hire any female teachers? How about all the busty women FOX “News” likes to use on their shows…can they all be canned under “Religious Freedom” if the network decided that their not being silent was against the networks strongly held religious beliefs?
This isn’t about a stupid cake! This is about one thing…when you open a business to the public, you can’t discriminate randomly against the public. Why as a business owner you would is beyond me. Anyone is welcome to buy the products my company sells, because money is money.
I’d be willing to bet that we’ll hear some argument along the lines of “If a Christian baker can be forced to bake a cake for a gay wedding, then can a gay baker be required to bake a cake for the Westboro Baptist Church that says ‘God Hates Fags?’ Can a Jewish baker be forced to bake a cake in the shape of a Swastika for a gathering of NeoNazis?”
Of course those are obnoxious comparisons and it’s insulting to the LGBT couples to compare their desire for a wedding cake that celebrates their love for each other to neo-Nazis or WBC who want a symbol of their hatred towards others. But I’m not sure exactly where the line would be drawn and on what objective basis.
I suspect the couple’s attorneys have an answer to this challenge, though I don’t know if that answer takes the form of a suggestion for where to draw the line and why, or whether they will just say that the court doesn’t need to rule on that in this case, and it will have to be addressed if or when those situations occur and someone sues.
Meanwhile, as a practical matter, I wouldn’t eat any cake baked by someone under duress. Not unless I was closely observing them every second. For obvious reasons too gross for me to want to describe here.
So religious discrimination is a Constitutional right of any business that serves the public?
Well, then, I guess we can look forward to signs in shop windows that read:
And:
Or:
Generations of patriots whirl in their graves.