The
U.S. Supreme Court receives thousands of requests every year, but less than
seventy are ever approved for oral hearings or review. The petition filed on
behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd., on “Writ of Certiorari” should have been
one of the many cases that the nation’s Highest Court should have passed on.
For one thing, the legal argument is not valid and without merit because it
seeks to indict the State government of using its coercive power to force
someone into actions that violates their conscience right of “Free Speech”
(Free exercise of religion clause of the First Amendment). In the Supreme
Court’s decision in Obergefelt v Hodges that
legalized same-sex marriage, Justice Kennedy wrote the majority opinion thusly:
The majority held that state same-sex marriage bans are a violation of the Fourteenth
Amendment's Due
Process and Equal
Protection Clauses. Citing Griswold v. Connecticut, the Court
affirmed that the fundamental
rights found in the
Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause "extend to certain personal
choices central to individual dignity and autonomy, including intimate choices
that define personal identity and beliefs", but the "identification
and protection" of these fundamental rights "has not been reduced to
any formula. An individual can invoke a right
to constitutional protection when he or she is harmed, even if the broader public disagrees and even if the
legislature refuses to act", for "fundamental rights may not be
submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.
Now, it is time for the historical backdrop to this legal
appeal to the Supreme Court:
Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips (“Plaintiff”), who
is a Christian, refused to bake a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple (
Charlie David and Craig Mullins) on the basis that to do so violated his
religious beliefs. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights
Commission, and the CCRC ruled that the owner (Phillips) violated the state’s
public accommodations law which prohibits businesses open to the public from
discrimination against their customers on the basis of religion, gender, or
sexual orientation. The owner appealed the decision to the Colorado Supreme
Court, which upheld the decision by the CCRC, and asserted: despite the
artistic nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was
part of the “expected” conduct of Phillips business, and NOT an expression
of “Free Speech” or the “free exercise of religion.”
NOTE:
This religion exception is an old argument that has been soundly rejected by
lower courts in the following:
Sweet Cakes by Melissa
Christian bakers who lost their store and were fined
$135,000 for declining to make a cake for a same-sex wedding brought their case
before the Oregon Court of Appeals Thursday in an attempt to overturn the judgment.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, owners of Sweet Cakes by Melissa in Gresham, Oregon,
said they simply want the freedom to live by the tenets of their faith. “We
just want the government to tolerate and accept differences of opinion, so we
can continue to follow our faith,” Mrs. Klein said at a press conference
following hearing. “We hope that, even if people have different beliefs from
us, that they will show each other tolerance and that we can peacefully live
together and still follow our faith. That’s all we want. “An administrative
judge for the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries found the couple guilty of
discrimination for declining to bake a wedding cake for Rachel Cryer-Bowman and
Laurel Bowman-Cryer in 2013. Cryer in 2013.The bakers were ordered to pay
$135,000 for the mental and emotional damages they caused the lesbian couple.
Attorneys argued Thursday that the government violated the Klein’s’
constitutional rights to freedom of speech, religious exercise and due process.
“The government should never force someone to violate their conscience or their
beliefs,” Kelly Shackelford, president of First Liberty Institute, which
represents the Klein’s, said in a statement. “In a diverse and pluralistic
society, people of good will should be able to peacefully coexist with
different beliefs. We hope the court will uphold the Klein’s’ rights to free
speech and religious liberty.” It is illegal under Oregon law for businesses
to refuse service on the basis of sexual orientation.
Ingersoll v
Arlene’s Flowers (Arlene Flowers
lawsuit)
Rob Ingersoll and
Curt Freed were shocked and hurt when their longtime florist refused to do the
flowers for their 2013 wedding because of her religious opposition to same-sex
marriage. The couple, with the help of attorneys, sued Richland florist
Barronelle Stutzman under Washington’s anti-discrimination and
consumer-protection laws. Attorneys for Stutzman argued Tuesday that a floral
arrangement is a form of speech deserving of protection and that government
cannot compel Stutzman to create an arrangement for a gay couple against her
religious beliefs. State Attorney General Bob Ferguson urged the court to
uphold state anti-discrimination laws and not to create an exception for
religious beliefs. He noted that many people once held strong religious beliefs
against interracial marriage, but the courts ultimately struck down those laws
as discriminatory. Cathy Echelbarger, of Edmonds, said she believed the case
was about freedom of religion. “The government shouldn’t be telling her who
she should or shouldn’t be doing business with,” she said. Stutzman and her
attorneys argue that the court’s ruling is unlawful government coercion and
that the creative expression of floral arrangement deserves the same protection
as free speech. “The government is coming in and telling me what to say,
what to create, what to believe. That’s not America to me,” Stutzman said.
During Tuesday’s hearing, several justices expressed skepticism for that
argument, asking, “So anyone
worried about their [creative artistic] expression may deny services to a
customer?” asked Justice Steven Gonzales.
Mr. Phillips was a
guest on ABC’s “The View” on Friday, June 30, 2017, where he explained his
religious objection for refusing service to a same-sex couple. He believes that
marriage is between a man and woman and a wedding ceremony is sacred and
blessed by God, and that to be forced to prepare and adorn such a cake would
violate his conscience and religious belief. I think the legal issue that the
SCOTUS Justices need to decide is: Whether creative artistic business
expressions are protected under the First Amendment “Free exercise of religion”
Clause. A cursory reading of the Constitution seems to echo silence on how a
business should operate, but the Tenth Amendment says: The powers not
delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the
States, are “reserved” to the States respectively; or to the People. The
licensing of any business is done by the State and has the sovereign right to regulate
through its laws and statutes how such entities that are engaged in commerce to
the public are to operate with respect to customers. If the Supreme Court
should decide in Mr. Phillips favor, it would be a “slippery slope” and set
legal precedent extending far beyond this particular case,
leading not only to legal challenges by the state but other unexpected and
unintended consequences.
It must also be
mentioned that religious liberty doesn’t only just mean Christianity. Since Mr.
Phillips would not decorate a wedding cake for non-traditional marriages, I
suppose a Mormon plural marriage or a Wicca ceremony is out of the question.
Not only that, to be consistent, a gay couple celebrating a wedding anniversary
or a same-sex couple celebrating the birthday of a child they adopted probably
would not get his business, either. Would Masterpiece Cakeshop provide a
decorated cake for a Santeria wedding; what about a Hindu one? This complaint
involves just one business owner, but what about others-florists, Olan Mills
portrait studios, Hall mark greeting cards, wedding planners, Interior
Decorators, catering services, etc. The Declaration of Independence to the
Constitution uses such lofty words as Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of
Happiness, but how can this goal be achieved when religion is used as a “wall
of discrimination” that separates groups of people. A person suffers ‘harm’
when they are denied the legitimate, reasonable, and lawful expectation from
business goods and services. Besides all that, religious beliefs are fluid and
changeable; there is no universally-agreed-upon Truth. Religious practices and teachings
undergo constant reevaluation and evolution. The religion ‘exception’ can be/is
used ‘arbitrarily’ in many cases to foster intolerance, bigotry, prejudice or a
judgmental attitude. This confers on the objects of disaffection a second-class
status by denial of such person’s liberty, social justice and the full
entitlement of all rights as citizens guaranteed by the Constitution of the
United States.
Robert
Randle
776
Commerce St Apt 701
Tacoma,
WA 98402
June
29, 2017
