Wow! I wonder if Kagan and Breyer are in the liberal doghouse now.
I wonder what the baker would have done if the couple had bought one of his cakes and put something like “Happy Wedding to David Mullins and Charlie Craig from Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop” on it themselves?
I work in a store owned by Orthodox Jews, and occasionally I’ll get a male customer who will ask for a male cashier “for religious reasons.” Yes, really, and from Jewish, Muslim, and Christian faiths.
Sounds like they punted on the key issue, however. Specifically, they did not rule on whether as a general rule a baker can refuse a cake for a gay wedding or not. They just ruled that in this particular case the civil rights commission’s considerations evinced too much hostility to the baker’s religious concerns.
I know that neighborhood. The best reason to own a bakery right there is because the rent on the space is low. If this guy’s creations were so remarkable he would be much better off setting up shop in 1 mile in just about any direction. Had the couple accepted the baker’s refusal and simply picketed the business and/or written him some truthy reviews online indicating the proprietor’s discriminatory tendencies they could likely have driven him to move to another part of town. It ain’t libel if it’s true–they could really have had some fun with him.
I think the SC decision is a good one, and that the baker should be free to expose himself to public ridicule. It’s potentially a far more vicious consequence than some stinky court order. This is not the Jim Crow South where an entire industry could unite against a particular class of citizen making it impossible for them to buy a wedding cake. It’s far more likely a local baker would have spiffed them a cake and taken that publicity (and potential referral business) had they picketed the 'phobe.
Yes, as I said in an earlier post - the Supremes have recently had a habit of kicking the can down the road and failing to make bold pronouncements. Maybe it’s for the best. Give it a few more years, and social mores will probably come down more on one side than another. (Remember when Jimmy Carter moved to Washington and had to change churches, because his church in Washington did not allow blacks to attend? How does society feel about that concept today?)
Meanwhile, the decision was “this was his deeply and sincerely held religious view.” So anyone trying to follow in his footsteps would have to consider whether they can measure up to the same level of visible religious sincerity, and whether a bit of a wording change from the state would have tipped the decision the other way, and… whether they want to spend a fortune in lawyers’ fees to find out.
Wasn’t it also key that when another baker was asked to make a cake with antigay Bible verses on it, she refused and the same civil rights commission that said the Christian baker had to make the gay wedding cake said that she was in the clear in not making the Bible cake? My impression was that the SCOTUS majority ultimately saw that either both bakers needed to be forced to make those respective cakes, or neither—and they chose neither.
Yes. The SCOTUS judgement in Masterpiece Cakeshop included discussion of of the experience of a Mr Jack who submitted an amicus brief to the court relating his experience.
Mr Jack attempted to place an order for cakes at three different Denver area bakeries, Gateaux, Ltd. , Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., and Azucar Bakery. At each he requested a cake with the shape of an open bible, though the other details of the requested design varied from one bakery to the next. Each requested design included words such as portions of bible verses and/or images that these other bakers found offensive and all three other bakers refused to produce a cake with the requested design.
Mr Jack made a formal complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission against all three bakeries which refused his requested order. The commission ruled against Mr Jack in all three instances and stated that the refusal was due to the baker finding the design offensive and not due to his religious beliefs.
The SCOTUS clearly had a problem with the different results the Colorado Civil Rights Commission reached in the case of the baker at Masterpiece Cakeshop as opposed the experience of Mr Jack. Justice Gorsuch, in his concurrence, wrote that this was an issue and that the outcomes should have been the same., and that the different outcomes was evidence of a lack of due process and hostility to religion in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Justice Ginsburg, in her dissent, wrote that the matters were sufficiently different and the commission was justified in reaching different results.
You’re leaving out some key information there, aren’t you?
I think you get the point.
I don’t see why the information is key, or why it makes any difference at all.
The Bible was written in Hebrew and Greek. What is the relevance of the fact that Mr. Jack asked for a paraphrase in English? Is that what made it offensive?
And the baker turned down the request for the gay wedding cake because of its offensive language, not the customers for being gay. So the ruling ought to have been the same in both cases.
Regards,
Shodan
He wasn’t even quoting an English translation. You can’t “paraphrase” something that doesn’t exist, much less claim it *does *exist.
The guy was pulling a stunt, clumsily at that, and deserved only disdain.
I do wonder what the occasion would be for someone to want such a cake. A home-school graduation ceremony, maybe?
What was the offensive language that the gay couple requested to be on the cake?
And… you’re right, that’s the distinction. The main case involved an apparently sincerely held religious view (even if debatable) while the Jack stuff was a deliberately provocative stunt not an expression of his religion. Whereas the offense expressed by the bakers he confronted was real and sincere.
You don’t have to be in favour of gay marriage to refuse to write messages on a cake if they offend you, and nowhere in the Bible is a religious person required to prove their religious belief by producing such messages. You don’t have to disagree with someone’s viewpoint to believe they have taken the viewpoint too far.
There’s nothing special about this. Places that produce printed media (i.e. custom embroidered hats at Disney World) regularly police what they will and will not print.
(IIRC the actual Bible phrase is Leviticus “if a man lie with a man, that is an abomination and they shall be stoned.” Of course, anyone who takes that to heart should also read the “letter to Doctor Laura”.)
To re-iterate - the Colorado Cake Maker did not sell off-the-shelf cakes. Every one was custom made, and specially designed and decorated. Presumably, this was enough to qualify as a work of art.
“Homosexuality is a detestable sin” seems like a reasonable paraphrase of “Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman: that is detestable.” The latter being a direct quote from the CEV Bible.
Seems like an awfully casual way to profess a strongly-held religious belief, don’t it?
And maybe there just wasn’t room to put all the rest of Leviticus, similarly strongly believed, of course, on the cake, even in 8 point Arial. That must be it, not lack of belief.
Not to mention that a Christian nominally embraces the *whole *Bible, especially the *New *Testament, IOW the Christian part with all that stuff about love and tolerance. Fake Christians, not so much - that stuff is hard, but denouncing is easy and fun.
As this is GQ I was attempting to provide a summary that focused on the issue the court found relevant per the question I responded to.
And the court disagrees with your No True Scotsman argument that a Christian must embrace the whole bible. There is no legal requirement to adhere to all aspects of any particular faith to have one’s sincerely held beliefs protected.
Indeed. It’s a common accusation on this MB and while it might make sense in the format of a GD debate, it’s not relevant for how the SCOTUS interprets religious belief.
The point is that, by using a cafeteria theology, he can’t claim he’s observing a fundamental Christian teaching rather than just trying to dress simple bigotry in a religious robe.
Two errors there. One, there is no requirement that the teaching be “fundamental”. Two, he absolutely can use a “cafeteria theology” in a US court. Note that in Clay vs US:
Emphasis added. Not as you or I understand them. Not as The Pope or the Grand Mufti understand them. As the petitioner understand them.
Actually perhaps a partial quote from the New Living Translation, which is itself a paraphrase.
Regards,
Shodan
By that logic, anyone can get away with anything as long as they can claim it’s commanded by their sincerely-held religion.
I don’t really think that’s what you mean or want, John.