Tuesday, May 22 , 2018, 2:09 am | Fair 53º

 
 
 
 

Diane Dimond: With the Religious vs. Gays, Whose Constitutional Rights Matter Most?

America, the land of the free and the home of the brave. What’s the phrase mean to you?

To me, it means all Americans who are brave enough to follow their dreams and find their own niche in life are free to live as they choose — according to their own principles — as long as they don’t harm others or break the law.

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to take up a Colorado case in which both sides say their separate constitutional rights were violated. It raises the question: Whose constitutionally guaranteed rights matter most?

Here’s the dispute in a nutshell: In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins wanted a special cake to mark their marriage, so they visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colo.

The owner, an artistically gifted and religious man named Jack Phillips, politely said, “I’ll make you birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies. I just don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings."

Doing so, he said, would violate his Bible-based beliefs.

The aggrieved couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They argued that Phillips’ slight wasn’t just about a cake; it was about discrimination.

“He simply turned us away because of who we are,” Craig said.

The commission ruled the baker had violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination law that says businesses may not deny service based on a customer’s race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. Phillips was ordered to provide wedding cakes on an “equal basis” — i.e., to any customer willing to pay for one.

Then the Colorado Court of Appeals also ruled against Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Phillips, who’s been described as a “cake artist” with a shop that is an “art gallery of cakes,” took a financial hit and simply stopped creating his popular wedding cakes. And he appealed the case to the Supreme Court, believing that his constitutional rights of freedom of religion and freedom of speech are as important as the couple’s.

He wrote an impassioned letter to The Denver Post, saying, “There is no policy at my shop, real or imagined, that says, ‘We don’t sell cakes to homosexuals.’”

Phillips said he will sell any cake in his display case to anyone who asks. However, he wrote, “I won’t design a cake that promotes something that conflicts with the Bible’s teachings. And that rule applies to far more than cakes celebrating same-sex marriages. I also won’t use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism or indecency.”

In other words, don’t come to Phillips looking for one of those anatomically correct gag-gift cakes for a bachelorette party. The man clearly has a set of principles he lives by.

It should be noted here that in 2015, the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution guarantees the right to same-sex marriage. Even before that, the state of Colorado had enacted several laws legalizing same-sex unions and protecting those in them. So Craig and Mullins seem to stand on solid legal ground, right?

But wait a minute. Don’t laws that protect the couple also punish the sizable portion of the population trying to live life as the Bible instructs, those religious citizens whose faith prevents them from embracing birth control, abortion, the death penalty and, yes, same-sex marriage?

“That’s not just my government telling me what I can and can’t do,” Phillips wrote. “That’s my government telling me what I can and can’t believe. They’re treading way beyond my cake shop — and deep into my soul.”

I can certainly sympathize with a couple who want to celebrate their happiness with a special dessert and then have their hopes dashed. But I can also sympathize with a hardworking entrepreneur who tries to live a faith-filled life.

As the highest court in the land considers this case of competing constitutional rights, it’s a good time for the rest of us to ponder the underlying issues of individual choice, freedom of opinion, and the common-sense idea of real and lasting harm done versus a perceived harm.

I know what the law says, but there is a flaw if one person’s constitutional rights are deemed less important than another’s.

I’m thinking there were lots of other bakeries available to Craig and Mullins, so they could have gotten what they wanted. And Phillips sees only one suitable path in life to walk if he wants to keep his principles intact.

It makes me wonder whether we will ever reach a point in this country when adversaries amicably agree to disagree and walk away without calling a lawyer.

Diane Dimond is the author of Thinking Outside the Crime and Justice Box. Contact her at [email protected], follow her on Twitter: @DiDimond, or click here to read previous columns. The opinions expressed are her own.

Support Noozhawk Today

You are an important ally in our mission to deliver clear, objective, high-quality professional news reporting for Santa Barbara, Goleta and the rest of Santa Barbara County. Join the Hawks Club today to help keep Noozhawk soaring.

We offer four membership levels: $5 a month, $10 a month, $25 a month or $1 a week. Payments can be made through PayPal below, or click here for information on recurring credit-card payments.

Thank you for your vital support.

Become a Supporter

Enter your email
Select your membership level
×

Payment Information

You are purchasing:

Payment Method

Pay by Credit Card:

Mastercard, Visa, American Express, Discover

Pay with Apple Pay or Google Pay:

Noozhawk partners with Stripe to provide secure invoicing and payments processing.

  • Ask
  • Vote
  • Investigate
  • Answer

Noozhawk Asks: What’s Your Question?

Welcome to Noozhawk Asks, a new feature in which you ask the questions, you help decide what Noozhawk investigates, and you work with us to find the answers.

Here’s how it works: You share your questions with us in the nearby box. In some cases, we may work with you to find the answers. In others, we may ask you to vote on your top choices to help us narrow the scope. And we’ll be regularly asking you for your feedback on a specific issue or topic.

We also expect to work together with the reader who asked the winning questions to find the answer together. Noozhawk’s objective is to come at questions from a place of curiosity and openness, and we believe a transparent collaboration is the key to achieve it.

The results of our investigation will be published here in this Noozhawk Asks section. Once or twice a month, we plan to do a review of what was asked and answered.

Thanks for asking!

Click Here to Get Started >

Reader Comments

Noozhawk is no longer accepting reader comments on our articles. Click here for the announcement. Readers are instead invited to submit letters to the editor by emailing them to [email protected]. Please provide your full name and community, as well as contact information for verification purposes only.

Daily Noozhawk

Subscribe to Noozhawk's A.M. Report, our free e-Bulletin sent out every day at 4:15 a.m. with Noozhawk's top stories, hand-picked by the editors.

Sign Up Now >