The Supreme Court Is Likely To Rule For Jack Phillips While Dodging The Religious Liberty Question

The Federalist ^ | 12/8/17 | Margot Cleveland

[x1stcav]

While there is always a risk of reading too much into Supreme Court justices’ questions during oral argument, there is often much to be gleaned.

If Tuesday’s oral argument is any indication, the year-long anticipation for the Masterpiece Cakeshop Supreme Court showdown will result in a narrow opinion that provides little clarity in the continuing conflict between culture and religious liberty.

By now the basics are well-known: When a homosexual couple asked Jack Phillips, the owner of the Colorado-based Masterpiece Cakeshop, to design a wedding cake for them, Phillips informed the pair that he could not, in conscience, create a cake to celebrate a same-sex marriage. The men filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, claiming Masterpiece Cakeshop “discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation” because of their sexual orientation.

An administrative law judge (ALJ) found in favor of the couple and ordered Masterpiece to provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples. The seven-member Colorado Commission on Civil Rights upheld the ALJ’s decision. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the commission’s conclusion that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the state’s anti-discrimination law.

The state appellate court also rejected Masterpiece’s argument that compelling Phillips to use his artistic talents to create a cake for a same-sex marriage violated his free speech and free exercise of religion rights. Masterpiece Cakeshop then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

[Ancesthntr]

“Calling a private business that is not a monopoly, a public accomodation, and that the private owners give up their right to free association, was the crux of the problem.”

---

I can definitely see where you’re coming from. But they did distinguish a public accomodation from a private club. In the latter, you had to be invited to enter - and therefor discrimination was considered OK. In a non-invitee situation (your generic stop’n’rob on the corner), it is something where any member of the public is permitted inside, because that is the OBJECT of a business that isn’t private. Business, as a matter of common sense, wants as many customers as possible. They advertise for it in innumerable ways, they try to make their premises look and be accomodating, etc. There’s a difference between that type of business and a private club.

[Ancesthntr]

I was just explaining the reasoning of the Court from the ‘60s, not agreeing with it.

I believe in both free enterprise and free association. If I don’t like you - for whatever reason - then I shouldn’t have to associate with you as an individual or as a businessman.

Of course, as a businessman, I would be the sort that would want as many customers as possible, so as to increase my bottom line. I think that it would be a stupid business decision to exclude (for example) all blacks or all redheads, etc., just on the basis of those particular characteristics. Everyone’s money is green, as the saying goes. But, as you would point out, that would be MY choice, and no one should force it upon me.

As an individual, I would not knowingly shop at such a business - I find the idea offensive, and would rather give the same dollars to someone who was (IMHO) a better person. But, as you would point out, that would be MY choice, and no one should force it upon me.

[saywhatagain]

"Colorado’s commission acted with hostility toward Phillips’ religious beliefs, as demonstrated by the commissioners’ anti-religion comments and refusal to sanction bakers who refused to sell cakes celebrating the traditional meaning of marriage.

Folks like these and their hatred for Christ and Christian values sit on thousands of city and school boards, destroying our way of life!

[Kanakabaraka]

Yes, exactly this. I don’t see much of a difference between this baker and all those people who refused to work for Trump’s inauguration. Either both have the right to refuse, or neither. I believe both have the right to refuse. (However, I thought the inauguration boycotters were pretty awful, since their refusal was rooted in an ideological opposition to the legitimacy of our system of government.)

[Harmless Teddy Bear]

Yes, I have the right to choose who I wish to work for. And truly, along with the right of self defense it is one of the most basic of all rights.

I would say the same about some small shops where everything is in another language. People who do not speak Spanish or Mandarin or Hindi or Thai are not welcome in those shops and that is their right. It is a bit short sighted but still, their right.

Although some will place the blame on the Civil Rights decisions of the sixties (and with some justification) it's roots are in the state Jim Crow laws that forced businesses to have separate accommodations.

It was at this point that people let the government begin to tell them who they could work for and how they must serve them. State or federal it was a very bad idea and a deep infringement on natural rights.

If the SCOTUS had stopped at saying that those laws were wrong then perhaps we would not be in the place where we are now.

And if, ifs and buts were candy and nuts we would all have a Merry Christmas. :)

Still the point has to be to now clean up this mess one hundred years in the making and once again uphold the right to be able to say, "Yes, I will or No, I will not" without having your life and property endangered.

[Monorprise]

“If I go to a Kosher Deli and order a ham sandwich will I get to sue if they don’t deliver?...................”

Try demanding a photographer shoot a porn film, or Walmart or amazon sell you a confederate battle flag themed cake to honor Confederate veterans day (as half the state do). Although Walmart and Amazon seem to have no problem with ISIS.

The point in all other areas your free to pick and choose(discriminate) exactly what services you provide and sell in accordance to your own personal believes, values, and interest.

Your mind, your heart, your labor, and your imagination belong only to you. All trade must be mutually consensual in all respects at point of trade or its not trade at all but thief and slavery.

Thus ultimately this is fundamental to the very idea of every kind of freedom. We can’t afford to lose this freedom, not in ‘law’, nor in practice(by suing someone out of business with excessive legal fees).

Even the left would not wish to lose this freedom, they simply think they can have it both ways and are using the law to oppress other people into acting as they believe rather than in accordance to their own personal believes.

[Zeneta]

As Chris Plante often says;

“What the left doesn’t want to ban, they want to make mandatory”

[Jim Noble]

The Supreme Court did not mandate nondiscrimination in public accomodations - that was the Civil Rights Act of 1964

[mlo]

Read my entire post.

[SoCal Pubbie]

I did.