Yesterday the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mr. Jack Phillips in his case against the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The 7-2 ruling grants that the Commission was hostile towards Mr. Phillips and his religious beliefs. If you are unaware of what occurred, in 2012 Mr. Phillips refused to bake a wedding cake for a homosexual couple because it would violate his Christian beliefs. He offered to provide them other baked goods, but the couple went to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission instead. It should also be noted that Colorado did not recognize gay marriage at the time of this incident. The case was taken to the Colorado Court of Appeals which ruled in favor of the Commission, and that is how the case reached the United State Supreme Court.
The ruling has led to further division in an increasingly divisive political landscape. Those of us who believe in the free market and limiting the power of the State are pleased with the decision, and it is unfortunate that not everyone views the ruling in a positive light. Just as the State has no right to dictate the decision making of individuals, it has no right to dictate the decision making of businesses. The freedom of association applies to businesses just as it does to individuals, and the consequences of how a business chooses to associate will affect its bottom line. The market is a far better detractor to discrimination than any action of the government could ever hope to be. If a business refuses to offer its services to individuals based on discriminatory reasons, that company should be boycotted. If left to operate freely, the market will provide a different business that offers the same service without discrimination which individuals can patronize instead. The discriminatory business will either have to change its practices or risk losing a significant portion of clientele to the nondiscriminatory business. Whether it goes out of business or simply experiences less profit, the market will punish the discriminatory business accordingly.
I am not advocating for discrimination or arguing that businesses that use such practices are right. I am arguing that no one, especially the State, has the right to force another individual or business to do something they do not wish to do. If I choose not to associate with an individual that is my right. If a business chooses not to associate with an individual or group and does not want their money, that is the right of the business. I will never support any attempt by individuals or the State to force a company to do something. I will, however, use my freedom of association to vote with my money. If a bakery does not feel it needs business from homosexual couples and refuses to bake them a wedding cake, that is fine. That bakery will not get my business either, and I will patronize a bakery that serves everyone.
In the current political scenario a lot of folk would claim this to be a victory and others would claim it to be a loss. I think you are right in says that implications of this go below what our supposed societal practice or religious beliefs dictate.
This in fact has nothing to do with win or loss of a belief system but rather everything to do with how much the State has infiltrated our practices as human beings.
We somehow assume that the State gives us rights. No the State does not gives us rights. We have them when we are born in this world. In fact an argument could be made for rights before the birth and after conception.
That the baker's right to choose "what they would or would not do" was ever in question was beyond my belief.
It was so ludicrous that i was sure that this was a ploy to make out gay people as horrific villains. (probably by some guys pretending to be gay) And thus provoke the christian-right to get up in arms.
I am glad that the supreme court ruled so. That it was 7-2, and not 9-0 is beyond my belief. Forcing someone to do something they do not want to do is slavery. And if there is no eminent physical danger from their inaction, then there should be no challenge to their rights.
If someone does not approve of this business's practises do not shop there. If you want to take it further urge others to avid this store. Ther are ote cakemakers,
But no one should attack a buiseniss, I'm strongly against that. Even is you hate what they are doing, don't riot, don't walk around the buisniss with signs like I see a lot of people doing. Just let that buiseniss do it's thing in peace and if they don't get clientel, well they don't get it, but don't rob others of their free choice to shop there.
Why would they put in in court when the business owner has all the right to choose whether he wants to serve a client or not? Maybe it's best if people would put their emotions in right place at the right time.
This case was won not because he refused to bake the cake but because the state of Colorado treated him differently then other's who made a conscientious decision not to bake cakes people requested that had disparaging wording or images of same sex couples. The state let those rulings stand while not only denying Philips his right to make a conscientious decision but also rebuked him openly in their rulings, making statements such as how religion has been used as a reason to discriminate against others for hundreds of years. (Along with other disparaging comments about religion) The court ruled the judgement against Philips was bias. The court ruled that tolerance would go a long way in ensuring the rights of all individuals, that moving forward each case will have to be determined on a case by case basis. Those bringing suit against those who refuse service will have the burden of proof upon themselves to show that the opposing party made a refusal of service out of a dislike or disdain for same sex couples. Therefore before refusing service a business owner would have to think hard if they've ever said or posted disparaging remarks against same sex couples before, belong to any organizations fighting against same sex rights, refused service of all products to same sex couples, baked a wedding cake for someone they knew got a divorce, or committed adultery, or even baked a wedding cake for someone released from prison after murdering someone....deeply held religious beliefs will mean just that, deeply held, they won't be able to cherry pick from the Bible. From my own personal perspective on this is that people who face losing their jobs, homes and savings in defense of their god hold deeply held religious beliefs, these people are far and few between given that there are only a handful of these cases across the country in the court system. Most people, in my opinion, don't subscribe to their doctrine like they should, before refusing service they have to think long and hard about what could be dug up from their past and if they want their family, friends, neighbors and fellow parishioners possibly dragged through discovery for a court case.
Congratulations @hookem! You have received a personal award!
Click on the badge to view your Board of Honor.
Congratulations @hookem! You received a personal award!
You can view your badges on your Steem Board and compare to others on the Steem Ranking
Do not miss the last post from @steemitboard:
Vote for @Steemitboard as a witness to get one more award and increased upvotes!