Why SCOTUS must protect Jack Phillip's right to not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple

Tuesday's U.S. Supreme Court hearing in the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission helped to delineate the complex issues in one of the most important religious civil rights case in years.

The case will determine whether a Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, can refuse, based on his constitutional right to be free of government interference in the practice of his religion, to bake a wedding cake for a gay marriage. It will determine, as the Wshington Post describes the issue,

whether  government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech with which he fundamentally disagrees and that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs.

One of the main issues that emerged is whether the baker can successfully assert that his custom made wedding cakes are a work of art. The idea is scoffed at some of those who think that Phillips should be forced to violate his conscience for the sake of a public accommodation. But they should watch this video that makes the case for artistic expression. And to get to know a man who is standing up for his beliefs.

The artistic argument, of course, is only one of the complicated issues that the high court must resolve. But if you want more understanding of the argument from Phillip's point of view, here is a explanation offered by the Scotus Blog:

In his brief at the Supreme Court, Phillips depicts the legal battle as a pivotal one that threatens “his and all likeminded believers’ freedom to live out their religious identity in the public square,” as well as the “expressive freedom of all who create art or other speech for a living.” He stresses that the First Amendment protects expression, which is not limited to words but can also include visual art, from traditional paintings and movies to tattoos to stained-glass windows. The “expression” protected by the First Amendment also extends to Phillips’ wedding cakes, he says, even if they are made with “mostly edible materials like icing and fondant rather than ink and clay,” because they convey messages about marriage and the couple being married. And the First Amendment also bars the state both from requiring Phillips to design cakes bearing messages that violate his beliefs and from punishing him for refusing to create such cakes – particularly when Phillips could, if he supported same-sex marriage, refuse requests to design cakes that oppose it.

UPDATE: Here's an argument that Colorado commission was being hypocritical in taking a position that Phillips couldn't refuse to design a cake for a same-sex wedding but that other bakers could refuse to make a cake for bakers who refuse to make a cake that opposes same-sex marriage:

Justice Anthony Kennedy took the state of Colorado to task for what appeared to be "hostility to religion" by at least two members of the Civil Rights Commission, forcing the lawyer for Colorado to officially disavow their statements. Other justices noted that the Commission seemed to be engaging in viewpoint discrimination, punishing a Christian baker who opposed being involved in a same-sex wedding, but ruling in favor of lesbian bakers who refused to create a cake ordered by a Christian that expressed opposition to gay 'marriage.




Leave a comment
  • So could a fundamentalist Protestant refuse to accept the legitimacy of John Kennedy's Presidency because HIS religion told him a Catholic President was the anti-Christ? And if so, could he refuse to obey any legislation signed into law by this illegitimate President?

  • In reply to HHH Is My Hero:

    Good question. One of those gray areas between two constitution rights. Recalls the case of Employment Division v. Smith in which SCOTUS said a state law that banned the religious/sacramental use of peyote was constitutional. Which led to the passage of the federal and state (including Illinois) various religious freedom restoration acts in an attempt to partially nullify the high court's decision. Lots of litigation to go; might never be fully settled. As for the president question, the sweeping impact of giving someone the right to disobey all laws signed by a particular president would be too much of a precedent opening the door for legal chaos. Can't see any court going along with it.

  • In reply to HHH Is My Hero:

    I read some of transcripts of the first day of hearing. A firm line is being set up by the defense. Sorry, that is confusing. Let me explain by example:

    A justice asked the defense if the cake maker should be allowed to NOT sell a cake already made and sitting in the cooler to a homosexual couple. The defense answered "by no means! He must sell a cake already made." The defense is arguing artistic custom *creation* only as being protected.

    From what I have read, I have a GREAT deal of respect for our justices on BOTH sides of the political spectrum.

  • Thank you for a well-reasoned argument, in the logical sense of the word.

  • Instead of slinging around insults, why don't you read the oral transcript of the arguments and respond intelligently? https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/16-111_f314.pdf

Leave a comment

  • Advertisement:
  • Advertisement:
  • ChicagoNow is full of win

    Welcome to ChicagoNow.

    Meet our bloggers,
    post comments, or
    pitch your blog idea.

  • Visit my new website

    I'm a freelance writer, editor and author. I can help you with a wide variety of projects. Check out my new website at www.dennisbyrne.net

  • Subscribe to The Barbershop

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  • Dennis Byrne’s Facebook Fan Page

  • Like me on Facebook

  • Our National Debt

  • Twitter

  • Tags

  • Recent Comments

    • There is something going on here and we need to have it for rushmyessay. I think that if people know…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Maybe a Republican put it there, so you would surmise that a Democrat put it there and write a…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Thanks for sharing. The upkeep price should even be taken care of earlier than taking any resolution. Best Battery For…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • According to Scott Galloway, the whole search was a big scam. The real reason for Amazon's split decision was Bezos's…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
    • Illinois law does allow sample ballots in polling places and voting booths, according to the Illinois State Board of Elections.…
      Read the story | Reply to this comment
  • /Users/dennisby/Desktop/trailer.mp4
  • Latest on ChicagoNow

  • Advertisement: