Right vs. Right
What happens when religious freedom conflicts with same-sex marriage?
The right of individuals to religious freedom is protected in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Specifically the “free exercise” of religion.
But how far does that right extend? For example, what about when one person’s “free exercise” conflict with another’s perceived civil rights?
That’s the question the U.S. Supreme Court will decide in its next term beginning in the fall.
This week the court announced it will take up the 2012 case of a Denver bakery that refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The bakery’s owner, Jack Phillips, said his religious beliefs would not allow him to do so.
Although the Supreme Court ruled in favor of same-sex marriage two years ago, there is no federal law that prohibits a business from denying service based on sexual preference. But Colorado is one of the states that have laws protecting gays from discrimination. The couple complained to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found in their favor and ordered Phillips to bake the cake.
Instead Phillips stopped baking wedding cakes at all and went to court instead, saying the Colorado law violates his right to free speech and free exercise of religion.
There have been several similar cases involving services to same-sex weddings and all have created a great deal of controversy. Gay rights supporters say any business open to the public should serve all the public and liken this to Jim Crow laws that refused service to African Americans in the past. However, religious conservatives say these businesses welcome the LGBT community as customers, but should not be required to provide any service that implies a specific endorsement of same-sex marriage, which many faiths oppose.
This is a vexing situation. On one hand it’s hard to argue that forcing someone to provide a cake or photography or music for an occasion that goes against their religious belief is anything but a violation of their First Amendment rights. And, unlike race, religion or national origin, sexual orientation is not specifically protected under the Constitution. So you have a specific right going up against what some say should be a right. The specific right should win.
But then you have the 2015 Supreme Court ruling that same-sex marriage is indeed a Constitutional right under the 14th Amendment. That complicates the issue. Now you have right vs. right.
The answer? Both should be respected. Same sex couples have the right to marry. But they should not have the right to force others to participate in their nuptials. Those opposed to gay marriage cannot stop or interfere with same-sex unions, but they have the right to refuse to participate in any aspect of the ceremony.
Is this that proverbial “slippery slope” that could lead businesses to refuse service to other minorities, even those of other religious beliefs, based on some arcane point of faith? Maybe so. But those cases can be handled as they rise. Right now the court will look at this particular situation. The 2015 same-sex marriage case was decided 5-4. Now the balance of power on the court has shifted. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.