bigot baker

| No Comments | No TrackBacks

NYT's Adam Liptak explains the bigot baker's big win at Trump's conservative SCOTUS:

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, writing for the majority in the 7-2 decision, relied on narrow grounds, saying a state commission had violated the Constitution's protection of religious freedom in ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, who had refused to create a custom wedding cake for a gay couple.

"The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here," Justice Kennedy wrote. "The Civil Rights Commission's treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection."

Where is the verse declaring that same-sex couples can't have cake? Is it the same one that once prohibited African-Americans from eating at lunch counters?

Back to Liptak:

The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Mr. Phillips's free speech rights had not been violated, noting that the couple had not discussed the cake's design before Mr. Phillips turned them down. The court added that people seeing the cake would not understand Mr. Phillips to be making a statement and that he remained free to say what he liked about same-sex marriage in other settings.

Here are some comments from the ACLU:

"The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people," said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU. [...]

"Today's decision means our fight against discrimination and unfair treatment will continue," said Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, client in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. "We have always believed that in America, you should not be turned away from a business open to the public because of who you are. We brought this case because no one should have to face the shame, embarrassment, and humiliation of being told 'we don't serve your kind here' that we faced, and we will continue fighting until no one does."

This decision sets back gay rights by a lifetime, according to Daily Kos staff:

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a seven-justice majority--led by Justice Anthony Kennedy and including justices Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan--determined that Colorado unconstitutionally discriminated against Jack Phillips, a baker who refused to make a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding--that of Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins--because of his sincerely held religious beliefs.

"There's no silver lining," the piece continues:

Kennedy refers to the "dignity and worth" of gay persons and gay couples, to the recognition that we cannot be treated as "social outcasts" or inferior in those respects, but in the same paragraph writes, "religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression." These two statements are as inconsistent as any ever written.

When Kennedy writes, "Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case," he legitimizes homophobia. It's also proof that he truly doesn't recognize the equal dignity and worth of gay people. There's precedent for what happens when the right of persons equal in dignity and worth to be treated as such clashes with others' religious claims to a freedom to discriminate.

Ginsburg:

Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding--not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings--and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied. [...]

For the reasons stated, sensible application of [the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act] to a refusal to sell any wedding cake to a gay couple should occasion affirmance of the Colorado Court of Appeals' judgment. I would so rule.

Daily Kos reminds us of the following:

It's not just that courts matter: Every seat matters, from district court judges who decide solo or guide a jury through that process to appellate and Supreme Court jurists. Every voice changes the conversation; the balance of votes decides compromises.

Given the relative youth of the conservatives on the Supreme Court and the likelihood Trump will get at least one more nomination, this setback could last a lifetime.

No TrackBacks

TrackBack URL: http://www.cognitivedissident.org/mt/mt-tb.cgi/3815

Leave a comment

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by cognitivedissident published on June 4, 2018 12:59 PM.

self-pardon? was the previous entry in this blog.

gun laws is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Monthly Archives

Pages

  • About
  • Contact
OpenID accepted here Learn more about OpenID
Powered by Movable Type 5.031