The Lakewood baker who refused to bake a marriage cake for a homosexual couple in 2012 just isn’t the sufferer in a case that this week was accepted by the U.S. Supreme Courtroom for consideration.
Charlie Craig and David Mullins had been planning for the happiest day of their lives when, unbeknownst to them, they walked right into a bakery owned by an individual harboring such prejudice towards same-sex he refused to bake them a cake. They’re the victims who suffered the true hurt of discrimination, not the opposite method round.
We hope the U.S. Supreme Courtroom — together with its latest justice, Neil Gorsuch — can weigh the info on this case to search out cake store that sells marriage ceremony truffles should promote these truffles to everybody. To do in any other case could be to weaken public lodging and employment legal guidelines throughout the nation that defend individuals each day from the doable discriminatory practices of the house owners of companies, renters of flats, sellers of properties, and employers.
No matter Masterpiece Cakeshop proprietor Jack Phillips’ justification for his prejudice — he says same-sex marriage conflicts along with his spiritual beliefs — it’s nonetheless discrimination. Phillips is looking for safety for his discriminatory practices primarily based largely on First Modification protections to speech. He’s saying his truffles are expressive and subsequently he can’t be compelled by the state to specific one thing with which he disagrees on a non secular foundation, on this case a celebration of a homosexual marriage.
Right here’s the place that argument falls aside.
Phillips should argue it’s the cake itself — not the decorations or phrases written in icing — that’s his expression. Phillips denied the couple service earlier than a dialog was ever held about what they might need their marriage ceremony cake to appear like. It’s the combining of flower, sugar and eggs that should be the expression, and Phillips mentioned he can’t in good Christian conscience enable his cake to specific itself at a homosexual marriage ceremony.
In an analogous vein, one would count on Phillips then to be equally as unwilling to offer chocolate chip cookies to a homosexual couple’s anniversary get together as a result of it was an expression of celebration towards his spiritual beliefs.
Let’s take a look at a associated, although hypothetical, state of affairs.
Say an artist who marketed his providers to the general public as a painter of commissioned works refused his providers to an interracial couple as a result of interracial marriages violated his spiritual beliefs. Say he denied the providers earlier than discussing what the portray could be of, however solely that it will be a present for the couple’s anniversary.
In each instances it appears clear to us that the product on the market is way much less expression than it’s a tangible good — paint on canvas and icing on a cake. Neither product is for public show past the marriage venue or a personal house, nor do the merchandise essentially comprise an overt expression of opinion or perception that the maker could be compelled to take part in. Refusal of service could be primarily based on who the purchasers are, not the content material of the expression they want to purchase, and that’s discrimination.
Ought to the excessive courtroom rule in Phillips’ favor, the justices can have opened an ungodly Pandora’s field of opposed penalties throughout the land.
To ship a letter to the editor about this text, submit on-line or try our tips for how you can submit by e mail or mail.