WED­DING CAKE CASE

Supreme Court and Lak­wood baker

The Denver Post - - PERSPECTIVE -

Re: “Can gov­ern­ment be the Cake Boss?” June 27 guest com­men­tary.

James Got­try of the Al­liance De­fend­ing Free­dom be­moans the fact that if the Supreme Court rules against cake maker Jack Phillips — who re­fused to make a wed­ding cake for a gay cou­ple — “his busi­ness’ very ex­is­tence will be in doubt.” As it should be. You dis­crim­i­nate, you threaten the sta­bil­ity of your busi­ness. Your choice. I would never pur­chase a cake from a baker who dis­crim­i­nates against oth­ers, even though he may deem my cake wor­thy be­cause I’m a woman who mar­ried a man.

All I have to say to Phillips and Got­try is, let them eat cake!

Mon­ica Toole, Golden

Re: “Supreme Court should rule: Let them have cake,” June 28 editorial.

Your point of view about this long-run­ning le­gal case in­sults both Chris­tians and sim­ple logic. Your equat­ing a deeply held Chris­tian re­li­gious be­lief as “har­bor­ing … prej­u­dice against same-sex cou­ples” is log­i­cally wrong and in­sult­ing. Fur­ther, your at­tempt to con­flate a small­busi­ness owner’s free­dom to sell a prod­uct, or not, to cus­tomers of his choos­ing with some na­tional threat of open­ing “an un­godly Pan­dora’s box of ad­verse con­se­quences across the the land” is a hy­poth­e­sis con­trary to fact. That is, you do not know that. You do not have some mag­i­cal crys­tal ball al­low­ing you to see into the fu­ture.

This case will be de­cided on the First Amend­ment to the U.S. Con­sti­tu­tion, and cake maker Jack Phillips will win. So, get used to the idea that po­lit­i­cal cor­rect­ness and iden­tity pol­i­tics is about to take a big hit. About time!

Stephen B. Pacetti, Lake­wood

Would the de­fend­ers of Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cakeshop call it his First Amend­ment right if he re­fused to bake a wed­ding cake for an in­ter­ra­cial cou­ple?

Fifty years ago, un­til the Supreme Court struck down mis­ce­gena­tion laws in the U.S., the mar­riages of in­ter­ra­cial cou­ples were still il­le­gal in 16 states. Peo­ple used re­li­gious ar­gu­ments to sup­port their op­po­si­tion to in­ter­ra­cial mar­riages, just as they do to op­pose same-sex mar­riages to­day.

Re­fus­ing to bake a wed­ding cake for an in­ter­ra­cial cou­ple would have been as ac­cept­able in many places in 1967 as is turn­ing away same-sex cou­ples by some bak­ers in 2017.

Ch­eryl Kas­son, Den­ver

Why can’t they both have their cake and eat it too? Why not have the cake shop make the cake in a man­ner most any­one might or­der, leav­ing off any ref­er­ence to LGBT sym­bols? Like a cake with pur­ple frost­ing with a rain­bow arch on top. Any­body might or­der that cake. Leave off the pair of male or fe­male stat­ues, which can be added when the cou­ple takes it home. Ev­ery­body wins a lit­tle, ev­ery­body loses a lit­tle!

I do not be­lieve the artist should have to use per­sonal tal­ents in any man­ner that dis­pleases him or her. Mark Rawl­ins, West­min­ster

I em­pathize with Jack Phillips and I do not think him to be a “bigot” or what­ever else oth­ers would call him. But I also do not agree with him. I can agree artists put their be­liefs and con­vic­tion into their work. But goods and ser­vices are sub­ject to com­mon law when sold to the pub­lic. If he can refuse ser­vice for ar­bi­trary rea­sons (yes, in­di­vid­ual be­liefs are ar­bi­trary), so, too, can other com­pa­nies — and that sets a dan­ger­ous prece­dent. Fur­ther­more, the sale of goods and ser­vices nei­ther im­plic­itly nor ex­plic­itly sug­gests en­dorse­ment — by that ar­gu­ment, the knife­smith is com­plicit in vi­o­lence, the gun­smith af­fir­ma­tive in mur­der. Thus, Phillips cre­ation of a cake doesn’t “en­dorse” ho­mo­sex­ual mar­riage. His be­liefs end where oth­ers’ rights be­gin.

Michael Thanh, West­min­ster

The case against Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, is head­ing to the Supreme Court. But who re­ally has the power against big­otry? Re­gard­less of the Supreme Court’s de­ci­sion, once they hear it later this year, we the peo­ple have the power by keep­ing our wal­lets closed.

Quite sim­ply, if you do not like a re­tailer’s pol­icy, do not pa­tron­ize them. I wouldn’t pur­chase a wed­ding cake or any­thing else from Masterpiece Cakeshop if it was the last bak­ery in town. Truth is, there are lots of great bak­eries in the Den­ver area, so why would I pur­chase from Masterpiece, which has de­cided to in­flict its per­sonal be­liefs on the pub­lic it re­lies on?

Les­lie Levy, Den­ver

Think­stock

The U.S. Supreme Court last week agreed to take up the case of Jack Phillips, a Lake­wood baker who re­fused to make a wed­ding cake for a gay cou­ple, cit­ing re­li­gious be­liefs. Phillips was charged with dis­crim­i­na­tion in 2012 by the Colorado Civil Rights Com­mis­sion.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.