News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: SCOTUS “Masterpiece Cakeshop” ruling very narrow in scope; pleases few - RightNation.US

Jump to content

SCOTUS "Masterpiece Cakeshop" ruling very narrow in scope; pleases few

One side of the table wanted a precedent-setting "religious exception" to non-discrimination ordinances, and the other side wanted a hard and fast proscription against such "dodging". Neither side got what they wanted.

For reference: The ruling (PDF link)

When renowned, professional cakemaker Jack Phillips learned that his potential wedding-cake clients were a gay male couple, he refused to make such a cake for them. This was in Colorado in 2012, before same-gender civil marriage was recognized; yet, Colorado had a non-discrimination ordinance which proscribed invidious treatment based on sexual orientation (among other explicitly protected qualities). The case was brought before the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in favor of the couple and against Phillips.

The matter was appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) which accepted the case, and recently issued the ruling referenced above.

This was much more than a case about a cake. (That would be silly.) It was a hot-button, now-post-Obergefell test of how to keep gay folks treated fairly and/or how to protect religious liberty from Government interference. Neither side "won". Instead of deciding the "big questions", SCOTUS issued a ruling that is very narrow in scope.

They ruled that Jack Phillips was not treated fairly by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

I cannot argue with the reasoning. The commission, as a governmental organ, should be totally fair and agnostic in regard to personal faith beliefs. Just like a jury, wherein "I think he's guilty" talk before deliberation is enough "taint" for a mistrial, the members of the commission must leave their biases at the door. If you cannot be impartial then you aren't being fair.

I am entirely okay with this decision. Those proclaiming "huge victory" or "terrible ruling" are being sensationalistic. Just like gay folks, Phillips deserved fair and unbiased treatment, and the commission didn't give him that. He still violated the ordinance and acted in a bigoted, invidious manner; that's inarguable. But even [gas]holes deserve a fair shake.

The battle rages on

0 Comments On This Entry