The Supreme Court just voted in favor of Jack Phillips. Jack Phillips was the Christian baker, of Masterpiece Cakeshop LTD.
In 2012, David Mullins and fiancé Charlie Craig walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop. They asked Phillips for a cake in celebration of their wedding. Phillips, a devout Christian, excused himself from making a cake for the ceremony. Mullins and Craig then brought this case to the Court of Appeals of Colorado. There were many appeals in which Phillips lost. The case was sent up to the Supreme Court, and Phillips ended up winning. The Constitution did not allow The Colorado Court of Appeals to force Phillips into making a cake.
What was the rationale? It must have been religious freedom. Religious freedom wasn’t brought into the equation. Phillips considers what he does a form of art. The court protected Phillips due to his 1stamendment right, but it did not involve religion. This case sets a precedent to protect artists from taking on contracts they don’t believe in.
It was a 7-2 decision. Ruth Bader Ginsberg voted against Phillips. She had her rationale for the decision.
“When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied,” Ginsburg wrote.
It’s understandable where RBG is coming from. The fact is though that there is a difference. One is not “better” than the other, but they are not the same thing. This involves a bigger issue going on right now. It seems as though we are no longer fighting for equality. We are fighting for equality of outcome. This is totally different. Equality of outcome pretends we are all the same exact thing, and ignores obvious difference. We celebrate diversity, unless we pretend we’re all the same. Our differences are very real. We should be treated fairly under the law, but this doesn’t mean we select diversity when it’s pertinent. I have sympathy for Craig and Mullins. I also have sympathy for Phillips. It was an unfortunate exchange that occurred in the cakeshop. This case is relevant for many reasons. It is most relevant though for the role of government in enforcing expression. This isn’t about same-sex marriage. It isn’t about equal rights. This case centered was centered on freedom of expression. It skirted religious freedom. We are left with a decision that is being construed as the LGBTQ getting the shaft. This is not what this is about. This is about protecting artists from having their hands forced to create art they don’t believe in. It’s a very important precedent worth setting.
I have sympathies for the LGBTQ community. I also have sympathy for Phillips. I have an even bigger concern for an overreaching government. I’m an artist, as you’ve seen in the illustrations above. I practice my freedom of expression daily. I’m an American, and couldn’t be prouder. My brother is gay, and has been in a long-term relationship for ten years or so. I have a good friend who is a devout Christian. This case is not about gay rights or religious rights. The decision brought about the limits of government.
This is not an attack on the recent institution of gay marriage. This is about limiting the role of government in matters of personal expression. This issue is paramount now. We have been battling with Facebook and Youtube in censorship. This is tied in with the philosophical question at hand. You cannot point to another nation in the world that has the same amount of freedom that America has. We still are strongly protected in our 1stamendment right.
We don’t want government to get into the business of forcing artists’ hands. This is a very dangerous proposition. What if a Nazi went into a Jewish shop? Would the Jewish person be forced to create work for the Nazi? Who would be protected, and who would not? Why would we give the government more power in order to command people to go against their conscience?
We have to think long term and not short term. We think we would be do-gooders by forcing Phillips to make the cake. I think more harm would come from this than good. In the short term we’d make the LGBTQ community happy. We’d also now have an ever more reaching government. We have a constitutional republic. It is a very complex system that breaks up power. The second amendment was designed to spread the use of force more evenly. It was written with the intention of keeping the government from getting too powerful.
I don’t understand why people would want a bigger government. It might be, because not many people know their history. We can look to Russia, Germany, China, Cuba and Iraq to name only a few. Look at what happens when a nation becomes top heavy with government. You get censorship, gulags and the state sanctioned killing of its’ citizens. I’m not exaggerating. Look it up. I wrote an article last month on this blog, “Communism Kills”.
“Beware of Greeks bearing gifts”. We think that the government is the great problem solver. It isn’t always. This ruling, if reversed, may have seemed like a gift. It would not have been. This decision was not about religion, sexual orientation or discrimination. It was about protecting our 1st amendment. A free society is very fragile. We are always tempted to go give over more power. We may not like where everyone is coming from. We may not like their jokes, expression or art. I’ll take being offended over an ever-growing state any day of the week.
