Posted on 12/06/2017 6:50:19 AM PST by Kaslin
This week, the Supreme Court hears Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Jack Phillips, proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a wedding cake ordered for a same-sex marriage on grounds that it would force him to create a cake expressing a value opposed to his Christian convictions. The gay men who ordered the cake filed a sexual orientation discrimination claim against him with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the Commission ruled against Phillips.
It was clear that this was not a matter of Phillips refusing to do business with these men because they are gay. He offered to make them any cake they wanted, just not one designed for a same-sex wedding.
Phillips claims his right of free expression under the Constitution's First Amendment.
Some not sympathetic to Phillips' claim argue that making a cake is not artistic expression and has nothing to do with speech protected by the First Amendment.
I'll leave the semantic nuances to the lawyers.
I'd rather consider the spirit of the law and our Constitution.
According to its preamble, the Constitution was established to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."
We want a functioning and prosperous society in which everyone can live freely. That's the point.
I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexual behavior is sinful. But as an American, it is no more my business what is happening in my neighbor's home than it is theirs what is happening in mine.
When we move into the public square, our focus needs to be freedom, not forcing me to accept the values of others nor them mine. We need law that allows those of different views and values to live together peacefully, mutually respecting the ideal of human liberty.
By this standard, how can we possibly rationalize forcing Phillips to produce a cake against his will, expressing a value anathema to his religion?
How can forcing Phillips to do this be understood in any way as securing for him "the blessings of liberty"?
Those in favor of redefining and legalizing marriage between individuals of the same sex had a great victory in Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. However, many supporters of that decision distort its spirit. It wasn't about forcing all Americans to accept homosexuality. It was about including this behavior under the umbrella of our guarantees of freedom.
The gay couple that wants to force a Christian man to make a cake for their wedding, against his deepest religious convictions, does not respect the ideal of liberty in which the Obergefell decision was handed down. If they did, they would respect differences and go elsewhere for their cake -- something easily done.
According to Pew Research Center, 71 percent of American adults are Christians. Among them, 39 percent say the Bible is "the word of God and should be taken literally." Fifty percent of Evangelical Christians and 59 percent of Black Protestants say the Bible should be understood as the literal word of God.
How can these Christians, white and black, possibly feel that the U.S. Constitution secures for them the "blessings of liberty" if, on a whim, a gay couple can walk into their establishment and demand a product that violates their religious convictions? Especially, when those demanding this product or service can easily obtain it elsewhere.
No, this is not like refusing to serve blacks in a restaurant. The spirit of that behavior is racism, the antithesis of "securing the blessings of liberty."
At the end of the day, our Constitution is only as good as the goodwill of our citizens. Things will only work when the ideal of "securing the blessings of liberty" is taken seriously and respected by all.
I’m praying for an outcome that honors God and our 1st Amendment rights.
Two questions: 1.The position that baking a cake is not artistic expression. How is that not sexist? I know Jack is male but baking cakes is historically seen as a female task/occupation. 2. There was reference in something I read that Kennedy was very critical of a comment that one of the commiserate said. Anyone know what was said and by whom?
If I went into a butcher shop and thet had a sign that said, “we observe kosher”, I’d be okay with that. I’d know not to ask for pork chops.
I think signage would help in such a bakery. “We observe fundamental Christianity”. I wouldn’t embarrass myself by asking for a Krishna cake.
That should be sufficient. Please let me know before I embarrass myself.
How is it different than racism....race is a genetic inherent characteristic.
Free speech and religion are unalienable rights. The right to comandeer the labor of another is not an unalienable right.
When I hire on at your construction site, I am willingly selling my labor to you. You may not buy my labor if I choose to not sell it to you.
Just give me a sign, a test, an interview...something.
It’s being Pro-choice here that is being trampled on. As a shopkeeper, based on my faith, it is my choice whether I want to bake you a cake that goes against my faith.
As a consumer, it is your choice to go somewhere else, buy that cake then complain I didn’t sell you a cake.
This is what it means to be pro-choice.
All I want is signage so i dont embarrass myself by asking
Sign
‘We don’t do non-traditional wedding cake decorating’
This is about forcing people to choose between their values and their jobs. The left knows most people are weak and will choose their jobs. The baker is an exception. The baker chose his faith.
Note that no one is even thinking about forcing muzzy cab drivers to drive passengers with dogs. Muzzies get special privileges and are allowed to do what they want. They already do “honor” killing, and are prosecuted lightly. They are allowed to have 4 “wives,” while normal people aren’t.
So, if the supremes find for the bakers, it will not give the muzzies anything they don’t already have.
“All I want is signage so i dont embarrass myself by asking”
Yup. No shirt, no shoes, no service.
What is it called when the government holds a (financial and law suite) gun to your head and forces you to say government determined communications? Isn't this what the Muslims do to infidels, executing them one at a time, if they don't recite the Koran correctly after they're kidnapped and quizzed?
Ya, I thought it sounded familiar.
Same thing for pro-life nurses FORCED to help murder babies in abortion..That’s what liberals want..To destroy your faith...Make you as secular as they are...
Could a printer refuse to accept an order
o to produce a limited number of "Thank You" notes
o to be distributed to the invited attendants of a dinner following the ceremony, wherein
o the nature of the ceremony is described
o according to the specifications of the agent purchasing the notes, and
o the acceptance of each recipient of the note is duly recognized?
Why should the printer not have the liberty of declining the order without having to justify the basis of his refusal even if there is no other provider of such special and unique services?
Why should this liberty not be defined by the Preamble to the Declaration of Independence and embodied in the Constitution for its implementation?
Decorating a cake is NOT artistic expression?
Then go to Wal-Mart & buy a plain sheet cake & decorate it yourself.
The really sad point, from every thing I have seen about the Supreme Court testimony, is that this will likely come down to a 5-4 decision in favor of religious liberty. Rest assured that if the Founders believed that religious liberty would only survive by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court, they would have altered the constitution to make a Supreme Court review of the Constitution impossible.
Excellent point
I understand that he agreed to make the cake, just not decorate it to his specifications
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.