The Supreme Court has ruled in a suprising 7-2 ruling that Christian bakers do not have to make wedding cakes for same-sex marriage ceremonies.  Sort of.  We can still acknowledge that baking artsy wedding cakes is still a weird job for a super-straight guy to have, right?

I’ve been skimming the majority and concurring opinions, and found that the key takeaways were that the Colorado Commission on Civil Rights were complete assholes over this whole affair.  No, that’s not in the opinion, but it’s only because Scalia was too dead to say it.

Only Ginsburg and Sotomayer dissented.  Even Obama-appointed Justice Kagan and super-liberal Justice Breyer couldn’t disagree with how grossly unfair the Commission was to the baker, although they ruled in concurring opinions since they wanted to expand on their reasons for agreement with the majority.  Still, this.

Before anyone goes off about how this ruling is a horrible setback for gayness and a great leap for theocracy, let me put that to rest.  It isn’t.  This case was decided on very narrow criteria and it was entirely because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was applying a double standard in its decisions about who can and can’t be forced to bake a cake.  They demonstrated very clearly that they had an axe to grind with Christians.

This ruling might have had a different outcome if the Commission hadn’t chosen to allow bakers to refuse to bake cakes with anti-gay expressions.  Or at least it might have been a less resounding 5-4 ruling.  It’s as I said a few days ago in the comments: either all of it is okay or none of it is okay.

The now ironically-named Civil Rights Commission tried to apply the reasoning we have seen so many times before in other avenues of law and culture.  That right-wing viewpoints, even religious ones, are just “hate speech” and should be shut out of the public sphere.  They choose for other people what is acceptable for them to hear, to speak, and even to believe.

It’s un-American and I’m glad the Court has fully repudiated that mentality.  Have no doubt that it’s the start of a long rollback on the far-Left’s war against religious freedom and freedom of speech.

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to see Solo and then have a cake made celebrating my upcoming wedding with my toaster.

newest oldest
Notify of

Now if you’ll excuse me, I’m off to see Solo and then have a cake made celebrating my upcoming wedding with my toaster.

Make sure to unplug it before you fuck it.

Zurvan

The justices, including Kennedy who wrote the majority opinion, went out of their way to make it a very very narrow ruling. They specifically point out the state laws at the time giving business owners some independence in how they can refuse to work for someone, and directly how the defendant was treated by the commission, essentially admitting that they were not ruling solely on the merits of the Constitutional argument. This does virtually nothing to settle the larger issue, which is disappointing.

I think this could be taken as an example of how laws that apply to the government don’t necessarily apply to private businesses.

Zurvan

Have to be honest. I prefer it when SCOTUS only rules on the merits of the specific cases in front of it. Broad, sweeping rulings tend to cause more problems in the long run.

I tend to agree, but not in this case. It’s only a matter of time before some other LGBT activist destroys a christian baker’s livelihood through repeated appeals. Because there is no way the more liberal Appeals courts will accept this ruling as worded as precedent to stop this type of litigation. I would prefer it be settled, like gay marriage.

Zurvan

Shapiro breaks the ruling down clearly and concisely in the first 20 minutes or so of his Podcast today.

%d bloggers like this: