Timothy Benton | Mar 13, 2018 | 0
Supreme Court Hears Case Over Wedding Cake
Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments on a case where a baker due to religious beliefs said he could not bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, the couple said they were humiliated, went to authorities. The State of Colorado took the bakery to court, they found him guilty, he has since been contesting the findings all the way to the Supreme Court. So what exactly are the facts behind this case? We try to expose them in a way that sheds light on what the Justices will rule on.
Since the foundation of this great nation of ours, we have held the right to religious freedoms as one of our founding causes. the reason is simple, the history of people coming to this country is full of stories of people fleeing religious persecution. Yet we have seen this under assault lately with the claims that political correctness should take precedence over religious freedoms.
The case the Supreme Court heard arguments over yesterday was the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, this was a case where a religious baker who is more an artist then a baker was asked by a gay couple to bake a cake for them, he refused, the state of Colorado stretched their Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) to charge him with discrimination, but the twisting of this law shows the double standards being applied here.
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) was set up because three bakers in Colorado had refused to bake a cake for a religious group that demanded they put on the cake messages that the artist found discriminatory in nature so they refused, when the religious sued this law was put in place to protect against people being forced to violate their personal belief. The law when created was then expanded to include protection of people due to their sexual orientation from being fired, or not hired in a business, it specifically applied to companies with 15 employees or more. But one has to ask, how does an employment law that prohibits discrimination have anything to do with retail sales?
In the Supreme Court filing, you see this mentioned as follows:
Respondents take this extreme position because they cannot deny that this case involves compelled speech. The Commission has applied the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) not to the mere sale of Phillips’s products but to his creation of artistic
expression. And its order requires that if Phillips continues to create wedding cakes at all, he must design cakes expressing support for same-sex marriage and include on them any words or designs that appear on any of his other cakes. The First Amendment forbids such attempts to dictate the content of an artist’s work. (https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/16/16111/21265/20171122130523511_Petitioners%20Reply%20Brief.pdf)
As we can see this has nothing to do with retail, instead, in order to push their agenda Colorado was willing to violate the first amendment to try to push their social agenda, this is creating a problem, to try to get around this they, in turn, tried to apply employment law a case that had nothing to do with employment.
What we instead had was a case of “free enterprise”, if a person wished to purchase a cake, and a retail store is not willing to make one for you, you go to another baker, give them your business, thus they thrive while the other does not, supply and demand. Now if you have more then one baker willing to make the cake, and this did happen, demanding one violate their religious beliefs is not in any way a civil rights issue, what you have is a willingness or more specifically an unwillingness to allow one to have their own religious beliefs.
Here lies the problem, as I mentioned in Ripping Away of Morals, this is not now, nor has ever been about ones right to live as they please, instead this is a case of one group trying to force another to submit to their moral code and to be humiliated while doing it. If you look at the interview with the couple that brought this case forward they said they were humiliated, but I have to ask, do they then think it is right to do this to the baker, to force them to change their religious convictions to appease them?
I have friends that I communicate with all the time that are gay, they said trying to force morality makes them very uncomfortable, has to do with the fact that it was done to them for years, said they fear if something like this is done, what happens if the tides of moral belief changes, then can discrimination once more be used against them? And this is the core issue, while it may seem expedient to do this with the moral outlook today, what happens if this country once more transforms itself morally and then stands against the Gay community like they did for years, do we then justify the same old prejudices returning? I say not.
I have taken heat over the years because of my stance on gay rights (LGBT: A Story of Growth And Understanding), I have no issue with it, everyone has the right to pursue a path that makes them most happy, but I also hold that this does not give you the right to demand others change their moral code to be like yours. We can agree that all will not accept homosexuality, that is fine, what is not is when people take this a step further and either try to force gay people into hiding or not being able to express whom they are, and equally, it is wrong when you see this in reverse. As I have said in the past, homosexuality is not a disease, having a gay friend and a nephew I love with all my heart, never has changed my personal sexual preference, I have never had the urge to kiss a guy because my gay friends do, as such I am happy for them when they are happy, as it should be.
With this being stated, what I support most of all is for ALL to be able to live their life as their founders stated it, “In The Pursuit of Happiness”. this was important enough for our founding fathers to pen this into the Declaration of Independence, I think this is equally applicable today. We need to protect one’s right to live as a gay person, or a couple as such, but we also equally need to protect the right of one that finds conflict with this in their religious beliefs, there is a way to protect both, let’s hope the Supreme Court finds this balance that is needed. This is what we should be supporting, not the infringement on the right of either side, both are equally wrong.
This may not seem like a big deal, but if the court finds against the bakery, then an individual could walk into a Jewish bakery and force them to bake a fascist cake celebrating the holocaust, or force a Muslim bakery to bake a cake that celebrated the crusades, could force churches to marry same-sex marriages, even if it goes against their faith. This is a case that could have far-reaching consequences for everyone. Some of this is going on in Europe, we see the left pushing to have this forced here as well.
At 0censor we aim to bring news that is news, articles like this are opinions and are labeled as such, the two should never be mixed unless specified. Our readers deserve better then what has been given, we aim to grow in this practice, to give the news that can be separated from opinion, and where opinions are given from both sides of the Isle. As such our needs are many, we are a very small organization that is growing at a rate that is taking us by surprise, we want to continue on as we are, not to take money in from larger organizations with their own political agenda, as such we count on advertising and you the reader to aid in our ability to continue. We ask this holiday season you remember us in your giving.