Originally Posted by Jim in CT
A very interesting case...a Colorado baker, who is Christian, refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. They sued, and a judge ruled in their favor. Last time I checked, the constitution guarantees the ability to practice your religion without government interference.
Does the baker's religion actually prohibit him from making a cake for a same sex couple? Is making a cake a practice of his religion? In this case, it may more be his right to free speech rather than a right to practice his religion.
But what happens when that freedom butts up against the freedom from discrimination?
At this point, it would be a matter of state law--Colorado's law barring discrimination at public accommodations based on race, gender, or sexual orientation.
As a federal constitutional matter, regardless of how SCOTUS would willy nilly "interpret" it, there is no prohibition against discrimination, except for equality before the law. Any SCOTUS "interpretation" of one part of the Constitution which negates another part should be null and void. In actual current practice (past 80 years or so) SCOTUS has repeatedly, at whim, used various parts of the Constitution (incorrectly) in contradiction to other parts or intents, especially in regards to individual "rights." So how the SCOTUS would rule, if this case got that far, depends on how 5 Justices "feel" about the issue--how they would "interpret" it. At the federal Constitutional level equality before the law falls under the constitutional enumerations--none of which prohibits personal discrimination. What the Constitution does is codify at the national level the ideal of the Declaration of Independence. It was written as a means to protect that independence against government tyranny. That Declaration guaranteed certain unalienable rights amongst which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The baker's refusal to bake the cake did not deny any of those unalienable rights.
I have no quarrel with gay marriage. What I don't like, is that proponents of gay marriage often used concepts like "inclusiuon" to support their cause. Well, if they are in favor of inclusion, doesn't that mean that Christians have a right to be included, too? And in suburban Colorado, assuming thi sbaker isn't the only baker in town, is it asking so much that they find a baker who doesn't have to violate his religious beliefs to support their wedding?
Did the gay couple speak of inclusion--of being included among the baker's clientele? They would have no inherent right to be included if they were not accepted. Inclusion is more of a societal privilege rather than a legal right.
The jusge said this..."At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse service to anyone it chooses," Spencer wrote in his 13-page ruling.
And what would that "blush" be if not an inherent right?
"This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and the hurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are."
Ah . . . so a "cost" to society or a "hurt" to another person wipes away the blush of individual freedom and makes the baker, instead, a tool of society. So what was the "cost" to society? The cost of individual freedom being sacrificed to the need of a vague and incoherent collective? And what was the "hurt"? Was there a bodily harm or a threat to life? Was there the deprivation of someone's liberty, or to his pursuit of happiness?
And being denied service simply because of "who they are," in the relativistic "spectrum" of being and the legalistic "interpretation" thereof, can surely go beyond race, gender, and sexual orientation. That spectrum can be fractioned into smaller and smaller units until every individual is uniquely "who they are." To say that you cannot deny service to someone simply because of who they are is saying that you cannot deny service to anyone.
So when did we amend the constitution to guarantee that no one would ever experience hurt feelings? COurts have upheld the right of the Westboro Baptist Church to protest military funerals, which is devastating to the families. In other words, the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, allow for the Westboro Baptist Church to hurt the family members trying to bury a fallen patriot. If freedom of speech trumps hurt feelings, why doesn't freedom of religion trump hurt feelings?
An interesting case. I say, tell the happy couple that even Chriistians have the freedom to practice religion, and they can easily find another baker happy for their business.
|