Supreme Court asked if baker’s case protects religious rights or illegal discrimination
Religious liberty or a license to discriminate?
That is how the issue is framed in many of the briefs filed in the case of a deeply religious Christian baker from Colorado who in 2012 refused to even discuss making a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a Denver couple who made Masterpiece Cakeshop one of the first stops in planning their reception.
The case’s importance is underscored by the attention it has received: One hundred friend-of-the-court briefs have been filed and people began camping out Friday afternoon on the sidewalk in front of the Supreme Court to secure a spot for Tuesday’s oral arguments.
Baker Jack C. Phillips contends that dual guarantees in the First Amendment — for free speech and for the free exercise of religion — protect him against Colorado’s public accommodations law, which requires businesses to serve customers equally regardless of “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”
Twenty other states and the District of Columbia have similar protections for sexual orientation.
The case marks an intersection of two important trends at the Supreme Court that until now have progressed on parallel tracks.
On one, the court has consistently provided protection and rights for gay Americans, culminating in the 2015 decision in Obergefell v. Hodges. It said the Constitution’s guarantee of due process and equal protection afforded them the right to marry.
On the other track, the court has been fiercely protective of the First Amendment and vigilant in guarding against government intrusion on religious beliefs. As one example, it ruled in 2014 that companies owned by people with religious objections could not be forced to provide government-mandated contraceptive services to female employees as part of their insurance coverage.
Only one justice — Anthony M. Kennedy — was in the majority in both of those decisions, and he is likely to be pivotal to the outcome of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
As it happens, Kennedy was the author of Obergefell , and his words in that case are repeated by both sides now.
Kennedy wrote that the right to marry is a “fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person,” and that same-sex couples may not be “denied the constellation of benefits that the states have linked to marriage.”
To James Obergefell, one of 30 plaintiffs who brought those cases to the court, resistance to the landmark ruling is what the current battle is about.
“The Supreme Court ruled that we have that right, yet there are people still trying to prevent same-same couples from fully participating in . . . the public arena,” he said in a conference call with reporters.
Phillips and his supporters point to another part of Kennedy’s opinion.
“It must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned,” Kennedy wrote for the majority in the 5-to-4 decision. “The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.”
Phillips said in an interview before the court accepted the case that he has no animosity toward Craig and Mullins; they just happened to choose a bakery “whose owner is a follower of Jesus Christ.” Asked if Jesus would deny the couple a cake, he said: “Jesus was a carpenter. I don’t think he would have made a bed for their wedding. He would have never condoned something that he was against.”
Phillips said he would have sold the couple anything in his shop except a wedding cake, because it would be contrary to his religious views that marriage is between a man and a woman.