Free Republic

It’s astounding how many defenses of the state’s position in Masterpiece Cakeshop depend on misrepresentation and misconceptions. Last week I wrote about the most common misrepresentation — that Jack Phillips discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation when he refused to design a custom cake for a same-sex-wedding celebration. After all, he served all customers — regardless of race, sex, or sexual orientation. He just consistently refused to design cakes that advanced messages he disagreed with. No person of any identity has the legal authority to compel an artist to use his talents to advance a cause the artist...

This week, the Supreme Court hears Masterpiece Cakeshop v. 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...

You need the First Amendment precisely when your ideas offend others or flout the majority’s orthodoxies. And then it protects more than your freedom to speak your mind; it guards your freedom not to speak the mind of another. Thus, in classic “compelled speech” rulings, the Supreme Court has protected the right not to be forced to say, do or create anything expressing a message one rejects. Most famously, in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943), it barred a state from denying Jehovah’s Witnesses the right to attend public schools if they refused to salute the flag. In Wooley v. Maynard...

At Tuesday’s oral argument in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—which will decide whether baker Jack Phillips can be forced by the state to design and create a cake celebrating a same sex wedding—it became apparent quite early on that the Court was grappling not merely with Jack’s case, but with a number of potential conflicts between religious freedom and same-sex marriage on its hands.Recognizing that the issues Jack faces in this case are sure to arise again, the justices struggled with where to draw the line for a constitutional rule which will protect First Amendment rights in light...

"Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions." link to decision https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down its ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. While the decision ends an almost six-year legal battle, a new journey begins. This nation stands at the proverbial fork in the road. One path will lead us closer to a society controlled by hostility — one in which those who hold the dominant view in society will use government as a weapon to punish individuals who fail to adopt the prevailing orthodoxy. The other path will move us toward a truly tolerant society — one with room for individuals who believe,...

Progressives in the media have no respect for the traditions and structure of the branches of the government. As soon as one issues a decision based on anything but liberal ideology, the world is over. After the Supreme Court released their decision in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop LTD. vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in favor of the baker, Jack Phillips, the media went on a rampage. Liberal book publisher Haymarket Books tweeted out on its verified account almost immediately after the ruling was released, “Abolish the Supreme Court.”

Tolerance, it appears, is not a one-way street. Since the rise of the gay-marriage movement, it has become fashionable to decry dissenters as haters and bigots, to attempt to write them out of polite society in the same way that the larger American body politic has rightfully rejected the Klan. Politicians thunder against Christian bigots. Media organizations put the words “religious liberty” in scare quotes, as if the expression of deeply held religious beliefs is a mere pretext, used to conceal darker motivations. And ideologues in state agencies give full vent to their rage, mocking faithful Christians as if they...