Why Barronelle Stutzman’s Case Might Resolve Questions Left Open in Masterpiece Cakeshop

[Elderberry]

National Review By Kristen Waggoner September 17, 2019

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every American enjoys the right to speak freely and to freely exercise our faith. That is true no matter how strongly we may disagree and debate with one another. But when the Supreme Court redefined what marriage means in Obergefell v. Hodges, many questioned if any of us would remain free to live out the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

That is a serious question: Both before and after Obergefell, government officials have been using the laws to crush creative professionals who created custom art celebrating marriage between a groom and bride — but could not in good conscience use their talents to celebrate any other form of marriage.

One of the first attacks landed in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case I was privileged to argue at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017. My client, Jack Phillips, is a cake artist in Colorado who serves anyone but cannot communicate every message or celebrate every event through his art. So when asked to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, he respectfully declined. Rather than respect his faith and conscience, Colorado prosecuted Jack.

More: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/baronnelle-stutzman-case-questions-from-masterpiece-cakeshop/

[sneakypete]

National Review By Kristen Waggoner September 17, 2019

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every American enjoys the right to speak freely and to freely exercise our faith. That is true no matter how strongly we may disagree and debate with one another. But when the Supreme Court redefined what marriage means in Obergefell v. Hodges, many questioned if any of us would remain free to live out the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

That is a serious question: Both before and after Obergefell, government officials have been using the laws to crush creative professionals who created custom art celebrating marriage between a groom and bride — but could not in good conscience use their talents to celebrate any other form of marriage.

One of the first attacks landed in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case I was privileged to argue at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2017. My client, Jack Phillips, is a cake artist in Colorado who serves anyone but cannot communicate every message or celebrate every event through his art. So when asked to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage, he respectfully declined. Rather than respect his faith and conscience, Colorado prosecuted Jack.

More: https://www.nationalreview.com/bench-memos/baronnelle-stutzman-case-questions-from-masterpiece-cakeshop/

@Elderberry

While I personally don't give a rabid rats ass if homos marry each other or not,the basic FACT is that you are either a Master,or you are a Slave. ANY government that can DEMAND that ANY business do business with ANYONE,regardless of their personal feelings,prejudices,wishes,or any other way you want to define it,is set on making us all slaves and them the Masters.

We are either a free people,or we are the subjects of our political masters.

If this means some non-white business owner refuses to do business with me because I am not dark enough to suit them,so be it.

The only obvious exceptions to this are agencies of the government,such as medical professionals,LEO's,and public servants who have government jobs.

The GOVERNMENT MUST treat everyone equally in order to be a just government. Individuals are and must remain,individuals,free to do or not do business with anyone they wish.

[PeteS in CA]

It looks like, again, state officials who decided this case voiced hostility as happened in the first Masterpiece Cakes case (yes, the activists have attacked that business again). So the USSC may simply slap down those officials in the State of Washington on the same basis as in the Masterpiece Cakes case. Or they may realize that there are bigoted officials "out there" who are cunning enough to conceal their bigotry, and rule more broadly so as to preclude sham objectivity.

[Hoodat]

The First Amendment of the Constitution guarantees that every American enjoys the right to speak freely and to freely exercise our faith. That is true no matter how strongly we may disagree and debate with one another. But when the Supreme Court redefined what marriage means in Obergefell v. Hodges, many questioned if any of us would remain free to live out the belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.

When the Supreme Court chooses to willfully ignore the Constitution, then we end up with decisions like Scott, Plessy, Roe, and Obergefell.

[jmyrlefuller]

When the Supreme Court chooses to willfully ignore the Constitution, then we end up with decisions like Scott, Plessy, Roe, and Obergefell.

And Lawrence, and Reynolds, and so on and so forth.

Judges with agendas are the most dangerous (wo)men in government... and Anthony Kennedy, thankfully gone now, had an agenda.