Let Them Eat Cake?

Today the United States Supreme Court passed down its decision on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.  If you've forgotten the case, Jack Phillips, a baker in Lakewood, Colorado, refused to bake a wedding cake for  David Mullins and Charlie Craig in 2012.  The wedding itself was to take place in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages were legal at the time, and a reception, with the requested cake, was to be held in Colorado.  Mr. Phillips refused to bake the cake based on his religious conviction that same-sex marriage is, in his view, against the will of God and therefore contrary to his religious views.

Initially the case was reviewed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission , who determined the rights of  Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig had been violated.  Further review upheld the same conclusion.  So the case was appealed to the Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it.

Today's ruling, a somewhat surprising 7-2 decision, turned on the question of the baker's religious freedom, and whether or not the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had maintained strict religious neutrality in their review of the case.  A majority of the justices believed that the Commission had not maintained neutrality, that they had in fact, been hostile towards Mr. Phillips views.  Writing for the majority, Justice Kennedy wrote, "The Civil Rights Commission's case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [Mr. Phillip's] objection."

The decision of the Court brings into sharp focus a question that will continue to plague us as a society.  Where do my rights leave off and yours begin?  And how, as a pluralistic society, do we guarantee that all citizens are treated with respect and dignity?  I am not sure it is an issue that can be resolved by legal means.  Yet there are obviously legal implications in so many of the things we say or do--even something as seemingly benign as baking a cake! 

I for one wish the decision had gone the other way. And I long for the day when all persons, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, are treated with every measure of respect and with full access to public accommodations.  But the matter of religious freedom is no small issue. How can we make it all work?  Can we?  The Court has left that open for now--suggesting that this case was decided based on a very narrow set of circumstances, and therefore has limited application.

I urge my readers to click on the link below and take time to read the decision, including the dissenting opinion written by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, for yourselves. 

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf