SCOTUS ‘Bake the Cake’ Decision Should Have Been 9-0 and Broad

The Supreme Court has ruled on the ‘Bake the Damn Cake’ case. The Court ruled “that the Constitution did not allow the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to order Christian baker Jack Phillips to bake a wedding cake for same-sex weddings because a commissioner said Phillips’ Christian beliefs on marriage were ‘despicable.’” (Breitbart)

While this was a partial victory for Jack Phillips, it was not a full vindication of the right of bakers, printers, caterers, photographers to refuse business based on disagreement with a potential customer’s message.

It’s unfortunate that this particular case has been labeled a religious freedom issue. It is that, but it’s much more. No one should be forced to propagate a belief, idea, or ideological movement they disagree with. Theists, as well as atheists, should have the freedom to say no. The same freedom exists for homosexuals to refuse to print t-shirts, signs, bumper stickers protesting same-sex marriage and so-called “Gay Pride” parades.

Why was it lawful for ABC to fire Roseanne Barr for comments she made about former Obama White House adviser Valerie Jarrett comparing her to a character from the reboot of Planet of the Apes? It was a viewpoint that ABC disagrees with. ABC should not be forced to rehire Roseanne. That would be absurd.

Robert DeNiro has said that he would not allow President Trump to eat at one of his restaurants. No one has made a fuss about this very public decision.

The very narrow in scope 7-2 decision has not solved the larger issue:

The Court left open for another case the broader question of whether the government can force people of faith to participate in same-sex weddings when the government does not openly show open hostility to their religious beliefs.

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. “I see no reason why the comments of one or two Commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips’ refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins,” Ginsburg wrote. It’s quite simple. Phillips did not refuse to sell a cake; he refused to sell a cake with a specific message that he disagreed with. Not every request for a cake or t-shirt is accepted by bakers and printers. A printing company owned by a liberal Democrat would be within its rights to refuse to print a t-shirt that read, “Ruth Bader Ginsburg is Senile and Should Retire,” so why not a cake for a same-sex wedding?

Does anyone believe that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is going to roll over after this decision? I hope not. They’ll come back stating that no one is permitted to deny service to any message regarding same-sex sexuality. Religion is not the issue. Discriminating against people like Jack Phillips will be done in the name of “human rights.”

The unlawfulness of the act will be compared to denying service to blacks even though a black-owned baker would not be prosecuted for refusing to make a cake for a KKK-themed wedding.

Pro-homosexual states will continue to pass laws attacking service companies like bakers and printers who refuse to develop a product with a pro-same-sex message. They will ignore the SCOTUS decision by citing its narrow focus.

While Jack Phillips has been vindicated by the decision, don’t be surprised if (1) another same-sex couple asks for a cake to be made for their wedding, (2) Jack Phillips (or some other baker) refuses, (3) the aggrieved couple sues, and (4) the Colorado Civil Rights Commission revises its wording to accommodate the SCOTUS decision.

What we need is for Anthony Kennedy to retire (he wrote the opinion) and for Pres. Trump to nominate another constitutionalist like Gorsuch and Scalia.

We haven’t heard the end of these types of persecutory suits against people like Jack Phillips. These pro-homosexual states will latch on to this statement in the decision by Kennedy:

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.

This is a loophole big enough to drive a bakery truck through. Sarah Warbelow, legal director with the Human Rights Campaign, stated that the decision “is so narrow as to apply only to this particular baker.”

Previous post

Beware of End-Time Prophets Who Keep Crying Prophetic Wolf

Next post

Science Study Says You're Ignorant if You Don't Support 'Gay' Rights