We have all read about the baker or photographer who refuses solutions to the gay wedding couple. From the battle of sincerely held beliefs of “right and wrong,” somebody will get hurt. 1 such case will be determined in the 2017-18 term from the U.S. Supreme Court.
A Colorado baker refused to prepare a wedding cake for a homosexual couple according to his religious convictions that gay marriage is sinful, and he shouldn’t be forced to express approval of their union implicitly by his preparation of a product [the cake, and very probably, the message written on the cake] celebrating the union. The Colorado court ruled for the homosexual couple.
Society’s opinion on the Critter Control Cost right of homosexuals to enter same sex marriages has changed rapidly over the decade. This rate of cultural change is awesome. California, for instance, went from a constitutional amendment restricting marriage to opposite sex persons to being forced by its State Supreme Court to allow such unions.
Is a wedding cake an expression of belief that, if forced, would be a breach of the baker’s religious liberty under the First Amendment? Government may neither compel affirmation of a repugnant belief, nor penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the government, nor apply the taxing power to inhibit the dissemination of a specific religious viewpoints.”
The Baker [Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado] says he views using his cakes as messages, and that some messages violate his religious beliefs. He’s written: “And that principle applies to much more than cakes observing same-sex unions. Additionally, I won’t use my abilities to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.”
The photography and wedding cake instances are distinguished from blatant homophobic prejudice by the “expressive” message the composing and/or graphics project. The company people who refuse to make these expressions do so since the expression is antithetical to their religious belief. Likewise, their spiritual belief is antithetical to those that are denied the goods or services the companies provide.
Religious Discrimination or Spiritual Freedom?
The right of free speech collides against the public safety once the speech is sure to cause mayhem and death to innocent folks. The right to “bear arms” is restricted by legislation requiring the registration of weapons following a background check. The present “wedding cake” dispute will need the court to balance two contending social values: the freedom to marry, and also the freedom of faith.
The Supreme Court has placed itself in the role of umpiring a social battle that raises numerous questions:
Is the icing on the cake a kind of governmentally compelled expression against the baker’s religious liberty?
Is the icing on the cake that the baker’s expression of acceptance of homosexual marriage, or merely a product specification that he delivers for saying by the purchaser?
Is the icing on the cake offensive to the baker to the level it’s an attack upon his spiritual convictions?
Is the icing on the cake easily available from other bakers not having the exact same religious convictions as Phillips?
Which spiritual beliefs merit First Amendment protections and that will be deemed unconstitutional?
Which spiritual practices does a free democratic society decide to be forms of prohibited discrimination?
In addressing these questions, the U.S. Supreme Court will need to determine whether the icing on the cake is a type of saying that unduly restricts Phillips’s freedom of religion. Is Phillips correct that he’s somehow made to accept homosexual union by preparing a cake to the wedding? Is the action of employing a message onto a cake his adoption of this message as his own? Is his baking involvement in a service he finds repugnant to his religious conviction? Repugnancy and abhorrence appear to be in full supply by both parties to the case. When the Court makes the call, there’ll booing from 1 side or another within the stadium of thoughts.