Sexual orientation was a protected class in Colorado at the time of the events that led to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. However same sex marriage was not yet legal at that time in Colorado. The couple wished to order a cake to celebrate their legal wedding which was to take place elsewhere.
The Atlantic’s summary of the reasoning Kennedy used included:
It was based on Free Exercise, not Due Process.
I disagree. The commission can still rule against him so long as they don’t say such mean things. The opinion is toothless.
The Court also held the Commission’s treatment of other cases before it were indicative of anti-religious hostility.
From Justice Kennedy’s ruling:
So, if in the next case the CRC says:
“While the committee, respectfully and with the utmost respect, has considered your perfectly valid religious objections, it has nonetheless concluded that this law of general applicability must be enforced so as not to demean any gay customers. We bow humbly in respect to your religious beliefs as we sign this paper assessing you with a fine.”
Okay?
People are entitled to their own opinions.
The people who want to be exempt from recognizing the legitimacy of homosexuality are, however, not asking for their opinions to be respected. They are asking for their own facts, and that is something to which they are in fact not entitled.
What the law says (or doesn’t say) will inevitably catch up to this, probably soon, in whatever ways it hasn’t already.
For those who are on the “religious objection” side of this question, and who also happen to be American and white, this is a situation you’re already somewhat familiar with. There may have been a time when black people were not welcome in your church; if so, certainly that has changed. It doesn’t mean everyone in your church is black now, it just means black people who do show up are as right and as welcome as anybody else.
The same thing is happening with LGBT. You can accept it, or you can shut down your church - and that’s really about all. Choosing to slow the process down makes some people more comfortable, and I get that, but it won’t be long till there’s no choice anymore. You can deny as loudly or vehemently as you like; denial makes no difference in the end.
"Third, the events occurred before the Court’s decision, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that same-sex couples have a right to marry. Thus, Phillips in part based his denial on the fact that, at the time, Colorado did not permit same-sex marriage—that “the potential customers ‘were doing something illegal.’”
Wow. That is next-level stupid. Like, I don’t understand the difference between marriage and a party. Are all parties just marriages? Or vice versa. Man this world is hard!
A Tennessee hardware store owner makes no secret of the fact that he doesn’t want teh gayz’ business, having already put up a sign back in 2015 saying they’re not allowed in his fine establishment:
Naturally, he’s quite happy with the SCOTUS decision about the bakery case.
But…how does he know which customers are gay? Lesbian? Bi? Trans? And so on?
OK, my bad for relying on what I read here instead of reading the actual opinion. It was a Free Exercise based decision. You’re right. But your original statement (first quoted part here) is still wrong. The government can pass legislation that incidentally impedes Free Exercise. It can’t do so in a a targeted manner. And it’s different for the states v the feds. The feds have to contend with RFRA, and unless a state has a similar law, it does not.
So, again, the legislation in question remains on the books and the decision affects only the way the Commission needs to act going forward. If it acts neutrally, as Kennedy said, the ruling will probably go the other way. And just for the record, this is not reflective of the way I want things to be, but rather a recognition of the way things are. It’s important to keep those two things separate.
It’s not clear if it is a Free Exercise or a Due Process decision. The opinion hints at bits of both, however the holding seems to suggest due process.
If a committee under identical facts, could rule against the baker if it showed his religious views more tolerance, then it seems like refusing to bake same sex wedding cakes is not one of the components of the free exercise of religion.
And that’s what seems wrong to me about this whole thing. That a person’s right to do or not do [whatever] can, in some cases, depend on how neutral the judicial body deciding the case seems to be. Is that the standard, for now? That cannot be right. Are they buying time?
I’m having a hard time fitting this into a big picture.
I don’t think it’s “more tolerance” as much as “not outright bragging about how hostile you are to the defendant”.
A judge who made a statement about how “Christ-killers are greedy kikes and are responsible for making babies into Matzoh” is not going to be expected to give a fair hearing to a Jewish defendant. Same (if lesser) situation here. And when you consider that the Star Chamber of the CRC is made up of political hack appointees and the public has no say about them, they should be extra careful about spewing crap before one of their kangaroo courts. (I firmly believe this stuff should be handled in a court, not a committee of government appointed cronies of the governor)
Note: I’m 100% against the baker. I live kinda nearby him and depending on what I have to do before going into the office and before all this (and before I learned he was a bigot) I’d gotten some snacks to bring to work there (cupcakes, cookies, etc*). Since all this, I’ve been boycotting him (which means he’s not getting, say $25/year from me, max…big deal, but every little bit helps) .
But even bigoted assholes deserve a fair hearing.
*Which were good. Not great, but noticeably better than a supermarket bakery, say.
But the CRC was not “hostile” to him except in the sense that it ruled against him. Sure it made statements that criticized his position, but many of those same statements are made in these threads when we debate the issue. Judges make comments worse than that to me when I make an argument that they just are not buying. To say that in the past religion has been used to justify slavery or segregation is simply a true statement of fact.
The only practical effect of this ruling is that the CRC will simply tone down its rhetoric in the future while still holding those same beliefs.
Can a judge sentence a murderer if he has previously noted his “hostility” towards those who commit murder?
That may be the key word: ‘rhetoric’. Quoth the decision, “To describe a man’s faith as ‘one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use’ is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical - something insubstantial and even insincere.”
The very first page of the ruling states:
The Masterpiece Cake Shop case is admittedly a little more complex than I initially believed. If what I understand is true, the owner never said he doesn’t serve gays at all, just that he doesn’t make wedding cakes for gay couples.
But explain this: if the SCOTUS is saying that a bakery cannot be forced to make a wedding cake for a protected class of citizens under a state law, then what is preventing that ruling from being used to discriminate against other protected classes on religious grounds? It seems to me that the same owner could say “Well now that I think of it, I don’t really want to make wedding cakes for Muslims or Jews or Atheists either, me being a Christian warrior and all.”
If Tennessee had a public accommodations law covering sexual orientation, the store owner outright refusing to serve gay customers would violate it and legal action against the hardware store owner would almost certainly be upheld as constitutional.
This is distinct from the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, where the baker is arguing that compelling him to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding violates his free-speech rights (not free exercise!).
You have to understand the ruling. They did not say the legislation protecting gays in CO is no good. They said that in this particular instance, the Commission that evaluates such things showed explicit hostility to religion when making the call. What prevents other merchants from doing this in CO is, most likely, some better judgement from the Commissioners about what they say and how they implement the legislation. It sounds like Kennedy would have tilted the other way if some of the Commissioners hadn’t been outwardly hostile to religion. Instead, they need to take a neutral stance and not show that they are predisposed to rule against issues involving religion.
For states that do not have similar protection for gays, it’s a different story. In those cases, the SCOTUS will have to rule that states must offer gays protection at public accommodations even if they don’t have laws explicitly saying so. As of now, they have not said that in a broad sense.
That’s not true. Did you even read the ruling?