Wedding cake for gay couple shouldn’t bash blessings of liberty

This week, the Supreme Court hears Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

Jack Phillips, proprietor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to create a wedding cake ordered for a same-sex marriage on grounds that it would force him to create a cake expressing a value opposed to his Christian convictions. The gay men who ordered the cake filed a sexual orientation discrimination claim against him with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and the Commission ruled against Phillips.

It was clear that this was not a matter of Phillips refusing to do business with these men because they are gay. He offered to make them any cake they wanted, just not one designed for a same-sex wedding.

Phillips claims his right of free expression under the Constitution’s First Amendment.

Some not sympathetic to Phillips’ claim argue that making a cake is not artistic expression and has nothing to do with speech protected by the First Amendment.

I’ll leave the semantic nuances to the lawyers.

I’d rather consider the spirit of the law and our Constitution.

According to its preamble, the Constitution was established to “secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”

We want a functioning and prosperous society in which everyone can live freely. That’s the point.

I am a Christian, and I believe that homosexual behavior is sinful. But as an American, it is no more my business what is happening in my neighbor’s home than it is theirs what is happening in mine.

When we move into the public square, our focus needs to be freedom. Not forcing me to accepting the values of others nor them mine. We need law that allows those of different views and values to live together peacefully, mutually respecting the ideal of human liberty.

By this standard, how can we possibly rationalize forcing Phillips to produce a cake against his will, expressing a value anathema to his religion?

How can forcing Phillips to do this be understood in any way as securing for him “the blessings of liberty”?

Those in favor of redefining and legalizing marriage between individuals of the same sex had a great victory in the Obergefell v. Hodges, the 2015 Supreme Court decision legalizing same-sex marriage. However, many supporters of that decision distort its spirit. It wasn’t about forcing all Americans to accept homosexuality. It was about including this behavior under the umbrella of our guarantees of freedom.

The gay couple that wants to force a Christian man to make a cake for their wedding, against his deepest religious convictions, does not respect the ideal of liberty in which the Obergefell decision was handed down. If they did, they would respect differences and go elsewhere for their cake — something easily done,

According to Pew Research Center, 71 percent of American adults are Christians. Among them, 39 percent say the Bible is “the word of God and should be taken literally.” Fifty percent of Evangelical Christians and 59 percent of Black Protestants say the Bible should be understood as the literal word of God.

How can Christians possibly feel that the U.S. Constitution secures for them the “blessings of liberty” if, on a whim, a gay couple can walk into their establishment and demand a product that violates their religious convictions? Especially, when those demanding this product or service can easily obtain it elsewhere.

No, this is not like refusing to serve blacks in a restaurant. The spirit of that behavior is racism, the antithesis of “securing the blessings of liberty.”

At the end of the day, our Constitution is only as good as the goodwill of our citizens. Things will only work when the ideal of “securing the blessings of liberty” is taken seriously and respected by all.

Reader Comments ...

Next Up in Opinion

Opinion: The real Down syndrome ‘problem’

Iceland must be pleased that it is close to success in its program of genocide, but before congratulating that nation on its final solution to the Down syndrome problem, perhaps it might answer a question: What is this problem? To help understand why some people might ask this question, keep in mind two children while reading today’s column....
Opinion: In defense of cultural appropriation

I’m here to defend cultural appropriation. “Cross-cultural influence,” would be the less pejorative phrase. But the term above, with its connotations of grand-theft culture, is the one favored by some African-American activists who’ve had it up to here with nonblack performers borrowing the soul and style of Michael, Marvin...
Here’s what you said about the student walkout
Here’s what you said about the student walkout

Matt Klontz: They should all be punished … detention or suspension. They have a right to protest but they should have done that before or after school. They have no Constitutional “right” to disrupt class time and the school day. Matt Atha: It’s the same thing as teachers that went on strike years ago for better wages. They...
Opinion: Want to dive in the Trump job pool? Ask me anything

Dear Career Counsel, My grandson just graduated from college and is having a terrible time finding work. I was wondering if he would qualify for a job with the White House. I hear there’s lots of turnover. Is secretary of state still available? Or what about the young man who carried around extra pens for the president? Didn’t he just get...
Opinion: Tillerson’s insubordination meant he had to go

WASHINGTON — There are many reasons Rex Tillerson’s tenure as secretary of state was a failure, from his notorious isolation from his subordinates to his failure to help quickly staff the political appointment positions at State with competent Republicans. But it was his insubordination to the president that assured that he wouldn&rsquo...
More Stories