The Supreme Court made a huge decision this morning which will undoubtedly send liberals into a fit of hysterics likely only to be appeased through the destruction of peaceful neighborhoods. The decision was supported by seven of the nine justices, which is amazing considering how divided the court typically is and how much judicial activism the court has shown itself willing to allow. The case in question was Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Before we discuss the ruling, let’s review the case.
Back in 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, an engaged gay couple, went into a cake shop owned by Jack Phillips with the intent of having a wedding cake made for their wedding. Based upon his religious beliefs, Phillips refused. First, something must be explained, because this is a very important distinction that the media very rarely explains. Phillips did not refuse to sell the couple anything in the store. Had they come in and wanted to purchase items off the shelf, Phillips would have sold them said items. What he refused to do was to create a custom cake for the couple. This is, at least in my mind, a very important distinction. It is one thing to refuse service to someone who simply wants to come in and buy some candles or decorations. To tell anyone they cannot buy these items is clearly unjust and should not be allowed; regardless of one’s race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation. What we are talking about in this case, however, is forcing someone to create works that may fundamentally go against their values and beliefs. Essentially this would completely negate any free will in our society for any business owner that uses any artistic expression in their wares.
In typical liberal fashion, this refusal was the single most devastating event in this couple’s clearly overly protected life. Craig’s mother, Deborah Munn, stated, “What should have been a joyous occasion had turned into a humiliating occasion.” To translate, no one has the right to disagree with the personal choices of someone (who is in a progressive’s protected class) and we should be able to legally force people to not only outwardly support other peoples’ beliefs but also emotionally embrace these views. The ACLU, obviously, jumped all over this case and helped the couple file suit.
Within six months, Judge Robert Spencer ruled along the lines of the Colorado Civil Rights Division and stated that it was illegal to refuse to create a cake based upon religious beliefs. In his brief the judge stated, “At oral argument, Respondents candidly acknowledged that they would also refuse to provide a cake to a same-sex couple for a commitment ceremony or a civil union, neither of which is forbidden by Colorado law. Because Respondents’ objection goes beyond just the act of ‘marriage,’ and extends to any union of a same-sex couple, it is apparent that Respondents’ real objection is to the couple’s sexual orientation and not simply their marriage…The ALJ, however, rejects Respondents’ argument that preparing a wedding cake is necessarily a medium of expression amounting to protected ‘speech,’ or that compelling Respondents to treat same-sex and heterosexual couples equally is the equivalent of forcing Respondents to adhere to ‘an ideological point of view.’ There is no doubt that decorating a wedding cake involves considerable skill and artistry. However, the finished product does not necessarily qualify as ‘speech,’ as would saluting a flag, marching in a parade, or displaying a motto…Respondents argue that if they are compelled to make a cake for a same-sex wedding, then a black baker could not refuse to make a cake bearing a white-supremacist message for a member of the Aryan Nation; and an Islamic baker could not refuse to make a cake denigrating the Koran for the Westboro Baptist Church. However, neither of these fanciful hypothetical situations proves Respondents’ point. In both cases, it is the explicit, unmistakable, offensive message that the bakers are asked to put on the cake that gives rise to the bakers’ free speech right to refuse. That, however, is not the case here, where Respondents refused to bake any cake for Complainants regardless of what was written on it or what it looked like. Respondents have no free speech right to refuse because they were only asked to bake a cake, not make a speech.” (Transcript from thinkprogress.org).
In essence the court ruled that you can only refuse service if there is actual speech written upon the cake which shows support for a certain view point. With this ruling, the judge essentially stated that the court would determine how you are allowed to abide by your faith and the constraints your religious freedoms must fit within.
In 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals stated that Phillips could not even use religion as a reason for denial of service, essentially eradicating the First Amendment. Phillips refused to simply capitulate and petitioned the Colorado Supreme Court to hear the appeal, which was denied. With all other avenues blocked, Phillips appealed to the Supreme Court of the United States which agreed to hear the case in 2017.
The court finally ruled on the case, and in doing so supported Phillips in exercising his religious freedoms. Written by Justice Kennedy, “The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion.”
CBS news quoted Phillips senior counsel, Kristen Waggoner: “Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment. Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society, yet the state of Colorado was openly antagonistic toward Jack’s religious beliefs about marriage. The court was right to condemn that. Tolerance and respect for good-faith difference of opinion are essential in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must respect Jack’s beliefs about marriage.”
The court made it clear, however, that these decisions would need to be made on a case-by-case basis. In fact, they completely ignored the overarching question of religious freedom and ruled exceptionally narrowly on only the merits of this case. Justice Kennedy stated the issue of religious liberties “must await further elaboration.”
This will not be the last case that the court hears in regard to expression of religion. They are currently slated to hear a similar case of a wedding florist who refused to provide floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding couple. The court clearly needs to walk a fine line in protecting the totality of our freedoms. Yet in today’s decision they made it clear that following your religious principals is still a viable and clear part of the First Amendment, even if this means some people may end up being discriminated against. Future rulings will undoubtedly help to refine their decision. For now, though, I can at least applaud the court in it’s very clear standing with our Constitution.
