The Supreme Court heard arguments this week on the case of the Colorado baker who did not want to bake a cake for a gay wedding. The baker said that to do so would violate his religious beliefs.
I could write an analysis of this from a constitutional point of view, but I would prefer to keep things simple with just a few questions to be answered.
Why did this case get brought? In other words, weren't there many other bakeries that could have been used for the cake? The answer is that there were, indeed, other bakeries, but that would have missed the real point of the case. This is not really a battle between some gay couple and a bakery. It is a dispute between the state and a baker who does not believe what that state requires him to believe. The goal is to squash any opposition to gay marriage on any basis possible.
Do the religious freedom acts of the federal and state governments mean anything? There are acts that were passed in the last 20 years that require the federal and state governments to accommodate religious beliefs if there are reasonable alternatives available. In other words, if a school district is adopting a new lunch program, it cannot choose to make the meals serve only pork if there are religious Muslims or Jews in the district. There has to be an alternative so as not to force these kids to violate their religious beliefs. Similarly, if there are alternative bakeries for the cake, is that enough so that the one in question here need not be forced to violate the baker's religious beliefs?
I'm curious to see how SCOTUS answers these questions.
I could write an analysis of this from a constitutional point of view, but I would prefer to keep things simple with just a few questions to be answered.
Why did this case get brought? In other words, weren't there many other bakeries that could have been used for the cake? The answer is that there were, indeed, other bakeries, but that would have missed the real point of the case. This is not really a battle between some gay couple and a bakery. It is a dispute between the state and a baker who does not believe what that state requires him to believe. The goal is to squash any opposition to gay marriage on any basis possible.
Do the religious freedom acts of the federal and state governments mean anything? There are acts that were passed in the last 20 years that require the federal and state governments to accommodate religious beliefs if there are reasonable alternatives available. In other words, if a school district is adopting a new lunch program, it cannot choose to make the meals serve only pork if there are religious Muslims or Jews in the district. There has to be an alternative so as not to force these kids to violate their religious beliefs. Similarly, if there are alternative bakeries for the cake, is that enough so that the one in question here need not be forced to violate the baker's religious beliefs?
I'm curious to see how SCOTUS answers these questions.
No comments:
Post a Comment