I wrote about the custom wedding cake case. As you know it is a situation where a baker refused to bake a custom-made wedding cake for the two men who planned to get married. He said it was for two reasons. One, it violated his religion and also it infringed on his right to free speech. Although putting the Constitution aside the reason was he, like others, have a hard time accepting the idea of two men getting married.
I wondered what the baker would have done if two guys came in holding hands, told him they were married, and wanted to buy a loaf of bread. Or what if they were married but did not tell him that but just held hands. Would it be against his religion to sell them the bread? What if they were both poor and hungry and he was handing out stale bread for free? Would he refuse them? What does his religion say about dealing with the poor and hungry? Does it say inquire about their sexual preference before feeding? If the baker is a Christian did he know about Christ feeding the multitude with his miracle of bread and fish and He not putting any preconditions on who ate.
We know about this case because it was heard before the Supreme Court the other day. Justice Anthony Kennedy asked a lawyer representing the baker, if the baker could put a sign in his window saying: “We don’t bake cakes for gay weddings.” The lawyer answered yes because as long as the cakes were custom-made the baker’s artistic expression would be covered under the First Amendment.
But we know that is a foolish answer. The artistic expression says nothing. It is a design on a wedding case. Who has ever looked at a wedding case and received a message from one. The idea of freedom of speech is that everyone has a right to express an opinion or a thought or an idea.
Even though the Supreme Court says money is speech it has not said every inanimate object is speech even if someone altered it. The baker is not being asked to say anything just bake a wedding cake and decorate it. Putting a brick in the side of a wall is not speech no matter how skilled the bricklayer.
The baker is defending his refusal not only on an infringement on his speech but also as violating his freedom of religion. Sarah Sanders when asked ‘does the president agree that would be ok” if someone one could put a sign in their window that read “We don’t bake cakes for gay weddings.” She answered: “The president certainly supports religious liberty and that’s something he talked about during the campaign and has upheld since taking office.” She was then asked whether that would include putting up such a sign. She replied: “I believe that would include that.” How religious liberty means someone can say he won’t serve a particular clientele escapes me.
The president is ok with putting up anti-gay signs. But I ask as an American is that what we want in America? I thought we had fought that fight when blacks were not able to sit at lunch counters in the South. Do you remember how long those Jim Crow laws which made blacks second class citizens were in existence before something was done about them? It was about 100 years. Will we have to have another 100 years before gay citizens receive equal rights? Do you think that is a good idea?
You do not have equal rights if someone refuses you something they give to all others for the reason you are gay. I will be surprised the Supreme Court would have a split in opinion over this issue. Isn’t it easy to see that it will have the effect of driving wedges between people?
Isn’t it time the justices on the Supreme Court forget all the legal mumbo jumbo and do what is right for the country so that hatred and bigotry is chased out. What would be so hard for the Supreme Court to say that any business enterprise in the country open to the public has to make it wares available to all the people on equal terms. Shouldn’t that be the essence of America. I thought our nation’s motto is e pluribus unum, out of many one?
No one’s religious belief is being trampled upon by having that as a basic rule in our country. If a person’s religion does not let him treat all people equally then the person should not go into the business of serving the public.