ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

Cal Thomas: The politics of cake

| Sunday, June 10, 2018, 11:07 p.m.

Nothing appears beyond the reach of the social engineers, not even cake.

In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had failed to take into account the religious beliefs of a Lakewood baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. Justice Anthony Kennedy was highly critical of the commission, which he said had written its anti-discrimination regulations in ways that were hostile to the faith of the baker, Jack Phillips.

Kennedy's majority opinion noted that the apparent tip in the balance in favor of Phillips was the language used by the commission, which appeared to the court majority to denigrate Phillips' Christian beliefs.

While Phillips may now enjoy protection, others may not. The gay rights juggernaut has other cases before various courts involving businesses and individuals who have refused services to same-sex couples wishing to marry.

The point has been made that no Kosher restaurant would — or should — be compelled to serve non-Kosher food to a customer. The same goes for a Muslim baker, who might refuse to put a Star of David on a cake in celebration of Israel's 70th anniversary. As long as cakes, photographers and other services are available in an area, business owners should be allowed to decide who they will serve and who they will not serve. Is “no shirt, no shoes, no service” discrimination? Of course it is, but it is allowed because proprietors have a right to create an atmosphere that is attractive to a wide range of customers.

Kennedy noted that the commission demeaned Phillips' faith by suggesting that “religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado's business community.”

By downgrading people of faith, the commission upgraded persons of no faith. It also required people of faith to hide their beliefs in a closet, a particularly apt analogy since the gay rights movement long ago abandoned the closet in favor of the public sphere. The goal of the gay rights movement it appears to me is to force people who disagree with them based on their faith to deny their beliefs and accept behavior they regard as sinful.

The nation's Founding Fathers expressly forbid Congress (not states) from establishing a religion so that people might have the right to freely exercise their faith. The restriction on government comes before the liberty granted to individuals in the First Amendment, indicating they wanted to protect people from government intrusions on their practice of faith more than they wanted to protect government from being influenced by people of faith.

The website uscourts.gov puts it this way: “The Free Exercise Clause protects citizens' right to practice their religion as they please, so long as the practice does not run afoul of ‘public morals' or a ‘compelling' governmental interest.”

If Phillips owned the only bakery in town and there wasn't another within a reasonable walking or driving distance (or online service), the gay couple might have had a more compelling case.

In the face of repeated lawsuits and personal attacks, conservative religious people have been asking, “Where are my rights?”

In at least this one case, the Supreme Court has sided with them, though the battle is far from over.

Cal Thomas is a columnist for the Tribune Content Agency.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me