For years, the case of a baker refusing to sell a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his faith has been used as a key example in many legal debates over religious freedom.
This particular case, in which Masterpiece Cakeshop was sued for refusing to decorate a wedding cake for a gay wedding, has finally reached the Supreme Court and will be ruled upon in the coming days.
The story of the case began with a gay couple in Colorado who sought a custom cake for their wedding. They went to Masterpiece Cakeshop, where they were offered any cake they wanted. It wasn’t until they asked the cake designer to make a custom cake that the issues began. The cake designer refused to appease the couple because of his religious beliefs.
The couple became livid and filed a lawsuit for discrimination. The state of Colorado ruled in favor of the couple, and the baker appealed to higher courts. The case was finally heard by the Supreme Court on Tuesday.
The gay couple maintains the argument that to refuse them service is an act of discrimination, which is stupid. Someone’s refusal to cater your wedding because it’s against their religion isn’t discriminatory, it’s religious. It’s akin to saying that Chic-fil-A should be open on Sundays because not everyone is a Christian.
The baker has every right to run his business how he chooses. The way to check against discrimination in business isn’t to mandate people at a governmental level, it’s to allow the free market to dictate who is right and who is wrong.
If someone is racist against African Americans, and refuses to provide them with service, then they’ll be run out of business by their competitors who aren’t racist now have more customers.
On the flip side, forcing someone to act against their religion is characteristically un-American. It violates the freedom of religion and association to say that a Christian baker must, legally, bake a cake for a wedding his faith does not agree with.
The liberals claim that this baker is “intolerant,” when in reality it is the couple who do not tolerate or respect his religion. The same logic applies to a business manager mandating that Muslim women in their employ cannot wear head garments – it is unconscionable.
“Tolerance is essential to a free society,” Justice Kennedy said at the hearing, “And tolerance is most meaningful when it’s mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of [the baker’s] religious beliefs.”
The state of Colorado, defending its ruling, argues that because their laws apply to everyone equally, that it is not discriminatory. In other words, because no one is allowed to act on religion when it comes to business, it isn’t inherently discriminatory.
This is flawed logic, because those affected are religious people. Secularism is also, technically, a religion, and their state law unfairly mandates that everyone has to act like a secularist. That makes their law unconstitutional because it favors one religion (secularism) above all the others.
Whatever the court decides should provide citizens across the country with a wide host of debate-material. That is, if only liberals could make it through five minutes of a debate without feeling personally persecuted.
The baker rightfully argues that his being compelled to act against a tenet of his faith is unconstitutional