Andrew Sullivan Let-HimHave His Cake
"I think it was a prudential mistake to sue the baker. Live and let live would have been a far better response. The baker’s religious convictions are not trivial or obviously in bad faith, which means to say he is not just suddenly citing them solely when it comes to catering to gays. His fundamentalism makes him refuse to make even Halloween cakes, for Pete’s sake.
Nonetheless, here we are. And it is a hard case constitutionally. It pits religious and artistic freedom against civil equality and nondiscrimination. Anyone on either side who claims this is an easy call are fanatics of one kind or other. I’m deeply conflicted.
The smartest and most nuanced take I’ve read on the subject is that of philosopher John Corvino. He argues that there is indeed a core right not to be forced to create something against your conscience but that in this particular case, the act of creation is so deeply entwined with hostility to an entire class of people that antidiscrimination laws overrule it. It’s worth reading, but he still doesn’t quite convince me."
Andrew thinks the case should avoid taking a strong stand in terms of religious freedom. The baker deserves to be able to pick and choose what kind of work he wants to do as an artist.
Andrew is worried that gays are advocating taking freedom away from other people, that Christians are sealing themselves off from those they consider sinners. In other words, this case should never have existed if people were true to their values.
I think it was a prudential mistake to sue the baker. Live and let live would have been a far better response. The baker’s religious convictions are not trivial or obviously in bad faith
ReplyDeleteI like Andrew Sullivan - I'm one of his subscribers - but his views are influenced by him being 1) a conservative Catholic, and 2) a Libertarian. He doesn't represents a Democrat's view of civil rights.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteAndrew Sullivan's views have been influenced by his being smart along with an impressive ability to argue his point. There should be more Democrats like that.
DeleteSorry about the deletes. All due to proofreading errors! Oy!
DeleteGiving the baker the right to refuse a customer due to sexual orientation, given that gay marriage is legal in the United States, is just as much a violation of their civil rights as it would have been if he refused to bake a cake for a minority couple, or for a mixed race couple. My son is white and his wife his black. It's only been 50 years since their marriage would have been illegal in the state of Virginia, where my son lived before his met his wife. The Judge's ruling then was based on his religious beliefs -
ReplyDelete....the county court judge in the case, Leon M. Bazile, to issue a ruling on the long-pending motion to vacate. Echoing Johann Friedrich Blumenbach's 18th-century interpretation of race, the local court wrote:
Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.[18]
I like Andrew Sullivan, but I disagree with him on this issue. Those who operate businesses open to the general public should not be permitted to discriminate. I am both shocked and saddened that the insider whispers are that the Supreme Court is closely divided on this issue. It seems that the previous rulings on similar discrimination due to race (Loving v Virginia) would make this one a no brainer.
"Giving the baker the right to refuse a customer due to sexual orientation, given that gay marriage is legal in the United States"
DeleteAnne - the baker's refusal predated the Supreme Court decision that made gay marriage legal in all 50 states. If I'm not mistaken, at the time of the original incident that spurred this court challenge, gay marriage was illegal in Colorado. I read in an account of the recent Supreme Court oral arguments that at least one justice seemingly thought this was significant to the case at hand.
I believe the couple in question had married in one of the states in which, at that time, gay marriage already had been legalized. They came to Colorado to hold a reception, if I recall correctly.
Even though gay marriage wasn't legal in Colorado at the time, being gay was (and is) a protected class for equal-opportunity purposes in Colorado.
I believe the baker has claimed that he doesn't refuse to serve gay people; it is same-sex weddings that he doesn't want to be involved in. It seems that he is making a distinction between a person and an event, and it is the latter that he is declining to be associated with.
He is smart and articulate. But as a Libertarian he would probably be on the side of the businessman and on the side of people getting to do whatever they want (refuse service). And He is kind of conservative as a Catholic too. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean liberal.
ReplyDeleteSullivan's position is basically what David Brooks argued the other day, except David hoped to build a lasting friendship between the couple and the baker through calm, reasonable discussion. There is no way I can make a wedding cake rise to the level of a federal case, but once it's there you have to hope the justices (fat chance) do no harm.
ReplyDeleteWhat is distressing about this case—at least to me—is that it comes down to a single individual who is being told what he can and can't do. I am reasonably sure that if he had not incorporated his business, and if he hired himself out as a "cake artist" (in the same way as, perhaps, and artist who paints portraits), he would not have been subject to the Colorado statute.
ReplyDeleteOne issue for me is that the baker (Jack Phillips) doesn't discriminate against gay people. He has no objection to gay people shopping in his store. He has no objection to creating a birthday cake for a gay person. It is only on the issue of creating a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding or commitment ceremony. Were there a shortage of bakers who would supply wedding cakes for same-sex marriages, perhaps a lawsuit would have been warranted. But this case isn't about assuring same-sex couples they will be able to buy wedding cakes. It is about punishing someone because he dares to have an objection to same-sex weddings.
What is ironic is that it seems possible the Supreme Court will hand down a decision which will expand religious exemptions from civil rights laws, resulting in gay rights (and civil rights) being less secure than they were before.
Perhaps this is yet another example of using newfound power to overreact or strike back rather than to make the country a better place.
Mr. Sullivan and those who think like him need to be reminded of this:
Delete"And so today, thanks to the persistent work of LGBTQ activists, millions of open-hearted straight Americans, and the U.S. Constitution, I do not live in a remote cabin with a dog, but on a lovely corner house with my wonderful husband (and dog). And I live with a hope fulfilled, one shared by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals everywhere: “Their hope,” writes (Justice Anthony) Kennedy in his concluding passage (in Obergefell v. Hodge) about same-sex couples wishing to wed, “is not to be condemned to live in loneliness, excluded from one of civilization’s oldest institutions. They ask for equal dignity in the eyes of the law. The Constitution grants them that right.” And I am thankful."
http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/06/26/gay_marriage_a_history_of_the_movement_for_marriage_equality.html
Chipping away at the equality that comes with Obergefell v. Hodge is something that will cause us to wake some day and discover that bakers like this man who has strong feeling about the religious significance of marriage may be perfectly legal in his denial to make a birthday cake for a couple who solemnize their marriage vows in front of secular authority as opposed to a religious ceremony.
Drip. Drip. Drip.
And this from Commonweal:
Delete"These debates are not academic. Despite the seismic cultural shift in support for same-sex marriage over the last decade, LGBT people still face substantial discrimination. As shared in the amicus brief they filed, Lambda Legal detailed more than one thousand incidents of LGBT people being denied service in the United States. This demonstrates “an ugly truth,” according to the brief. “With disturbing frequency, LGBT people are confronted by ‘we don’t serve your kind’ refusals and other unequal treatment in a wide range of public accommodations contexts.” Only nineteen states and the District of Columbia have passed laws specifically protecting LGBT people in public accommodations...... Religious Americans on the right also recognize that their faith comes with public responsibilities, and progressive people of faith should not blithely dismiss their sincere convictions. But respecting the sincerity of a conviction from a faithful fellow citizen and codifying that conviction into a law governing a diverse society are two different things. As the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative Catholic, noted in a 1990 case, laws of general applicability “could not function” if they were subject to nearly unlimited religious exemptions. Quoting from an 1878 decision, Scalia warned that such exemptions would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself." "
https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/not-worth-cake
If someone sold cakes to both white and black people, but refused to sell cakes for an inter-racial wedding because they believed people of different races shouldn't marry, how would that not be racist?
ReplyDeleteYeah, the baker is being told what to do. That's part of being a citizen of a society with laws.
People who are gay shouldn't have to cringe from having the laws that say they are equal enforced out of fear they might make things worse. No one should.
Good point about inter-racial marriage, it is a pretty direct parellel. There were and probably still are, people who believed inter racial marriage to be immoral. But we aren't being asked to approve. Its about selling goods or services.
DeleteMy marriage was inter-racial (Japanese + white). It was surprising how many people on both sides thought it was a bad thing.
ReplyDelete