The United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Colorado
Christian baker Jack Phillips on Monday in overwhelming fashion, saying that
the state government's hostility towards his refusal to make a same-sex wedding
cake violated the U.S. Constitution.
In a 7-2 vote, the nation's high court ruled that the state
of Colorado violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment when it
penalized Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood for violating a
state discrimination law by refusing to bake a custom cake to celebrate the
wedding of Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig.
"The laws and the Constitution can, and in some
instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their
civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are
protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression," a
summary of court's majority opinion states.
"While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can
protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and
conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be
applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion."
The court reasoned that Phillips use of his artistic
abilities to make a wedding cake carries a "significant First Amendment
speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs."
"His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was
before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State
and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor," the ruling
explained. "Given the State's position at the time, there is some force to
Phillips' argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision
lawful."
The court points out that Colorado law at the time gave the
storekeepers "some latitude to decline to create specific messages they
considered offensive."
"Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings
were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in
at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes
with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages," the court
stated. "Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful
consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case."
The court criticized the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's
clear bias against Phillips' Christian beliefs, which first ruled that Phillips
violated that state discrimination law after the couple filed a complaint. The
opinion states that the commission showed a "clear and impermissible
hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection."
"At several points during its meeting, commissioners
endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into
the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and
persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado's business community," the
majority opinion written by Justice Anthony Kennedy states. "One
commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe 'what he wants to believe,'
but cannot act on his religious beliefs 'if he decides to do business in the
state.'"
The opinion even stated that the "commissioner even
went so far as to compare Phillips' invocation of his sincerely held religious
beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust."
"This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission
charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of
Colorado's antidiscrimination law — a law that protects discrimination on the
basis of religion as well as sexual orientation," the opinion states.
The court also stated that more evidence of
"hostility" towards Phillips was shown by the fact that he received
"different treatment" than that of the bakers with objections to
making cakes that were deemed to have "anti-gay" messages.
The two justices who dissented were Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor.
Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kristen Waggoner, who
defended Phillips in the case, said in a statement that
"government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our
society."
"The court was right to condemn that," she said.
"Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential
in a society like ours. This decision makes clear that the government must
respect Jack's beliefs about marriage."
Following the court's ruling, many Christian leaders took
to social media to voice their support of the decision.
"We thank God for answered prayer!" Franklin
Graham wrote on Twitter.
"Today the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Jack Phillips, the Colorado
baker who refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage ceremony.
This is a huge win for religious freedom!"
Russell Moore, president of the Southern Baptist
Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, also said that the ruling
is a "win."
"What we don't need are governments forcing people to
use their gifts to say things that go against their deepest-held
convictions," Moore said in a video statement.
"So this ruling is a win not only for those of us who are Christians who
hold to a pro-marriage, pro-family viewpoint but also for all Americans for
freedom of conscience and freedom of speech."
Despite the outcome, the American Civil Liberties Union,
the law firm representing the couple, argued that the court's ruling was
"based on concerns specific to the case."
"The Court did NOT rule that the Constitution gives a
right to discriminate," the law group wrote on
Twitter.
"As a nation, we've already rejected the idea that
businesses open to the public have a license to discriminate against people
because of who they are," another ACLU tweet reads.
Conservative blogger Matt Walsh made a similar argument.
"Do not call this 'a huge win for religious liberty.'
It simply isn't," he wrote in a tweet.
"That is an inaccurate and misleading statement. This is a huge win for
Jack Phillips, specifically, but it does precisely nothing to help the general
cause of religious liberty."
The Alliance Defending Freedom will hold a press call
Monday afternoon to answer questions about the ruling. An update will follow.
This article originally posted by the Christian
Post
No comments:
Post a Comment