SCOTUS Hears Pivotal Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case Today. Will the First Amendment Prevail?

SCOTUS Hears Pivotal Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case Today. Will the First Amendment Prevail?

SCOTUS Hears Pivotal Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case Today. Will the First Amendment Prevail?

Jack Phillips owns a Colorado bakery called Masterpiece Cakeshop. As a religious Christian, for years he’s been the target of the Left’s assault on the First Amendment’s protections on religious liberty, which accelerated exponentially under Barack Obama. Via the hand of the radical LGBTQ lobby, it wants him forced to create cakes that violate his religious faith. Today, his case will be heard before the Supreme Court of the United States.

The case is a seminal one for religious liberty. It pits the ability of local and state governments to enforce “anti-discrimination law” against religious practice rights for businessowners; it essentially decides whether or not religious people can practice their religion in their business. This goes to the heart of freedom of religion in the United States.

And why has Mr. Phillips taken his case all the way to the Supreme Court? Because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission has pushed him there.

[Refusing to decorate cakes for same-sex marriages] is his Constitutional right. But the Leftists at the Colorado Civil Rights Commission didn’t think so. They think that Jack must be forced to violate his own religious beliefs and decorate a cake for a same-sex wedding, or stop making any cakes at all. As a result of their ruling, Jack lost 40% of his business and more than half of his employees — all for abiding by his Biblical beliefs in the most tolerant possible way. He was even told that he had to re-educate employees, including his family members, and report to the government what his artistic decisions were, listing all the cakes he’d failed to bake and why.

Re-education. Reporting to the government your artistic decisions. Folks, if that’s not fascistic government overreach, and an affront to the First Amendment, I don’t know what is.

And for chrissakes, people, can you not just patronize another bakery rather than attack your fellow citizens and disrespect their views? But I digress…

Text of the First Amendment (Photo Credit: BegnerLaw.com)

Is there something ambiguous about those 45 words?

Meanwhile, the Left continues to do what it does: conflate the argument, insisting that Mr. Phillips is trampling all over their “right to access a business,” and that their invented “right” trumps his freedom of religion.

Except he’s not denying anyone access. At all. Why?

Because HE SERVES. GAY. CUSTOMERS!!! Yes, I’m yelling.

No, Mr. Phillips doesn’t refuse cakes to anyone. In fact, he routinely serves anyone and everyone. The only thing he won’t do—because it violates his faith; just as it does Islam, ironically, but where are the assaults on Muslim bakeries? Hmm? HMMM?—is adorn his artwork with same-sex marriage messages. How is that any different than refusing to decorate a cake with the image of a Confederate flag, for example, because you view it as racist? Or refusing to decorate cakes with anti-gay messages, which he’s done. Answer: it’s not. And therein lies the crux of the issue: this fight is not about gay marriage; it’s not even about religion per se; it’s about the Left forcing private businesses to bend to their will, and even more consequentially, the eradication of religion, replacing it with the State, and with that, its full weight to push the little guy around. See the ObamaCare mandate, and the continued attacks on the Little Sister’s of the Poor, whom the Left wants forced to facilitate access to contraceptives, their religious objections be damned, for further proof.

The outcome of this case could prove pivotal in the debate about whether or not the First Amendment extends to privately-owned businesses, and whether or not they should be forced to provide services, and utter speech they don’t agree with. Though I’m no legal scholar, it seems to me the Hobby Lobby case has already laid the groundwork here. So here’s hoping the SCOTUS sees this case for what it is: affirmation of the First Amendment, which assures freedom of speech and association for all, including in privately-owned businesses. And that it finally puts an end to the assaults on bakeries, and by extension all privately-owned businesses, once and for all. If not, the continued wrenching at the very fabric of this nation, and its First Amendment freedoms, will persist unabated. And that’s just what the Left is hoping for.

Written by

13 Comments
  • GWB says:

    it essentially decides whether or not religious people can practice their religion in their business

    Actually, no, it doesn’t. It’s going to decide if his free speech can be restricted based on his religious conviction. All business owners who aren’t “making an artistic statement” or some such crap will still be totally restricted in their free speech, religious, and free association “rights”. If your business isn’t “artistic speech” or something, you still have to deal with anyone who wants to darken your doorway*.

    (* No, morons, that’s not a racist statement. Go to Wikipedia and read about this phenomenon called “shadow”.)

  • Scott says:

    This case was never about a cake, the gays that started all this went there just to start this fight, to be attention whores, and to advance their agenda… There is a gay bakery not 5 miles from Mr. Phillips’ bakery, yet they chose not to go there.. and as you said, he offered them any cake in the place, he just would not make one celebrating a union that is against his religious beliefs. If i recall correctly, he may have even offered to give them the icing / bag to write on it themselves..but in any case, as you pointed out, he’s also refused to do anti-gay cakes, and any others that go against his religious beliefs.. I do hope that SCOTUS does their job, and slaps Colorado and the SJW’s down HARD on this. The constitution means what it says, the fact that it so confuses the left is just more proof that liberalism is a mental disorder!

    • Jodi Giddings says:

      Absolutely. This is about crushing religion (and along with it, the 1A); well, except for the one that actually persecutes gays.

  • GWB says:

    Child molesters are okay but y’all mother fuckers don’t even wanna bake us a cake.
    Ummm…. this guy might want to check reality, since “us” in his case has a much higher percentage of said child molesters.

    And Jamie Tyroler can go soak his head. Since he’s nothing more than a religious fanatic, himself, worshipping hedonism. And a slanderer.

    Except he’s not denying anyone access.
    And this is the problem. Somehow trying to disassociate rights of “free speech” from rights of “association”. The idea that I have to make business transactions with anyone and everyone is a violation of the First Amendment just as much as forcing me to make a “statement” against my religious conviction.

    The Homosexual Lobby has helped to destroy our nation.

  • Steve S. says:

    If the Court rules against Masterpiece Cakeshop, then all those celebrities who canceled their Inauguration Day performances when Trump won the election should be immediately compelled to perform at the White House.

  • Marta Hernandez says:

    I have to wonder what kind of idiots want to abuse and force people who ARE MAKING THEIR FOOD AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO MESS WITH IT, to go against their beliefs! Seriously?

    Maybe it’s just the paranoid cynic in me, but I certainly wouldn’t want to piss off people who have access to my food.

    • GWB says:

      Heh. Of course, given the publicity involved in suing someone to force them to make you a cake, you can bet even a slight alteration in taste will be another lawsuit.

      Heck, I wouldn’t want to make it for them once the animosity set in because they probably will sue me, anyway, at that point.
      *smh*

      • Scott says:

        Ok, obviously i’m just a bit warped, but when i read your comment, I immediately thought of a “taste” they’d probably like… sorry, y’all probably need brain bleach now..

    • Jodi says:

      Excellent point!

  • GTB says:

    Doubt it. The Supreme court–especially a conservative one–has consistently ruled against their supposed orthodoxy.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Subscribe
Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
gisonboat
rovin_readhead
Instagram