Posted on 08/16/2015 2:47:21 AM PDT by markomalley
Just in case you need a refresher: Back in 2012, a baker in the Denver suburb of Lakewood was asked by a gay couple to make them a wedding caketwo years before gay marriage was even legalized in Colorado. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, declined to participate in Charlie Craig and David Mullins celebration, because such an event conflicted with his Christian faith.
Here are a few things Phillips didnt do: He didnt query consumers about their sexual preferences. He didnt bar same-sex couples from purchasing a cake at a place of public accommodation. He didnt ask consumers traveling in same-sex pairs to leave his shop. He didnt hang a No Gays Allowed sign in his window.
What he could never have known when he first opened his shop was that celebrating gay marriages would be a precondition for making a living. And when you consider that there are at least a few dozen other bakeries within a short drive from Masterpiece Cakeshop that could have accommodated the couples celebratory pastry needs, why would he?
Yet instead of exhibiting a basic level of tolerance (or dignity), two priggish bullies decided to call the authorities when Phillips refused to bake them a cake. And the cultural commissars at Colorados Civil Rights Commission soon ruled that he had discriminated against the couple.
The shop was not only ordered to alter store policy and start baking cakes for gay weddingsor else face debilitating fines, a consequence often reported on by the mediabut it was also forced to provide comprehensive staff training, ensure compliance, and then file quarterly obedience reports with the government for two full years. In these reports, Phillips had to describe exactly which remedial measures the shop had taken to conform, and document the reasons why any other patrons were denied service.
So, you know, Im sure this is exactly how Jefferson imagined America would turn out when he was writing the Declaration of Independence.
Phillips appealed the decision and just this week, a three-panel Colorado Court of Appeals unanimously decided that Masterpiece Cake Shops policy against creating wedding cakes for same-sex couples was a discriminatory and unfair practice, further ruling that the shop must continue to answer to the Civil Rights Commission, or else be run out of business.
Incredibly, the court acknowledged in its decision that it would have looked at the First Amendment arguments more closely had the gay couple ordered a cake with some explicit messaging that advocated for gay marriage. In other words, the Colorado Court of Appeals believes the threshold for denying religious liberty is the presence of advocacy. The court has effectively tasked itself with determining for you when religion should matter.
If nothing else, its comforting to know that Colorado can force an orthodox Islamic butcher to make sausages for a polyamorous bisexual bachelor/bachelorette party, so long as no one asks the butcher to outwardly promote swine and free love.
Not only does the court now apparently hold the power to bore into the souls of shopkeeps to establish that their religious objections arent authentic, but it can also decide when their prejudice is. It makes the risible assertion that any theological problem with gay marriage is really just opposition to the existence of gay Americanswhatever that means:
Specifically, Masterpiece asserts that its refusal to create the cake was because of its opposition to same-sex marriage, not because of its opposition to their sexual orientation. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage is closely correlated to Craigs and Mullins sexual orientation, and therefore, the ALJ did not err when he found that Masterpieces refusal to create a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins was because of their sexual orientation, in violation of CADA.
A person may have gay friends and relativesthey may even love their fellow gay Americansbut if they decline to participate in a same-sex wedding for theological reasons, the court wants us to assume they could only be motivated by bigotry.
In any event, Im sure there will be an appeal. But since most Americans are fine with gay marriage and simultaneously put off by unpleasant (and in this case, deceptive) words like discrimination and prejudice, the courtsnearly always driven by the vagaries of public opinionwill find a way to force all to comply. This will go for any other businesses even tangentially related to weddings, such as food catering, music, and so on. And the crusade will accelerate until the legal lynch mob gets to religious institutions. No doubt advocates will work backwards to come up with a great legal rationalization for all of it.
All of this is not to say that in American life, the minority should never be compelled to surrender to some form of majoritarianism, judicial force, or government. In this case, though, the minority does not have the ability to compromise without abandoning its faith. The other side refuses to compromise precisely because of this reality. And courts and commissions around the country are willing to destroy businessesbusinesses that sometimes took a large part of a lifetime to buildby ignoring one of the most vital functions of the First Amendment.
The position of these businesspeople, unlike Southern racists decades ago, in no way undermines the newfound right of gay Americans to marry, nor does it inhibit them from enjoying freedom or finding happiness. In this case, only one side is attempting to legislate morality.
If you admitand many rational people do, even those who quarrel with the reasoning behind religious obstinacythat millions of Christians hold some form of a genuine, long-standing religious conviction that prohibits them from celebrating gay marriages, but you still support state coercion against them, then you might as well just concede that religious freedom isnt compatible with your conception of a contemporary society.
Whereas at one time the state wouldnt substantially burden religious exercise and would use the least restrictive means to further compelling interests, the state today is inclined to substantially burden a Christian by the mere fact that someones feelings are hurt.
How about this.
No.
I do not acknowledge their right to force me to bake them a cake or provide them any service that violates my religious beliefs. I stand firmly on my first amendment rights.
No wiggling, no weaseling, no compromise.
Not in this area.
There may be more cake available, but if I were the baker, it would be nasty cake, depending on my mood.
.
“Render Unto Caesar” ... A direct “command” from Jesus Christ, not a mere sunday school “suggestion” ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B8TlzFiMSwY
.
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.