Government must respect religious beliefs about marriage
Americans are deeply divided on the meaning of marriage, an issue that for many is influenced by their religious beliefs. One view — that marriage is the union of a man and a woman — has been much maligned recently. The Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission addressed the fate of one American who holds that view.
In the wake of Obergefell v. Hodges — the case that ushered in same-sex marriage nationwide — there remain millions of Americans who, with no ill will to anyone, believe as a matter of faith that marriage is inherently an opposite-sex union. That diverse group includes conservative Christians, Jews, and Muslims.
The post-Obergefell world is an uncertain — even threatening — place for them. With all the vitriol they face, they can’t help but wonder whether they belong anymore.
Jack Phillips — owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop and follower of Jesus Christ — is a member of that group. He declined a request to create a custom wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage, while telling the couple that he would gladly design them cakes for different occasions or sell them anything else in his shop. That gave rise to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.
Speculation about the implications of the court’s ruling will abound. But beyond the finer legal points, the decision’s most enduring impact will be its answer to a deeper question: May the government ostracize and marginalize people of faith who believe that marriage is the union of a man and a woman?
The Supreme Court had two options before it.
It could allow governments to banish those beliefs from public life, telling people that while they may hold those beliefs in their heads, they cannot act on them in public. That would make painfully clear that some careers — like wedding cake artists or photographers — are now off limits to adherents of certain faiths.
Or the Supreme Court could treat those individuals as equal citizens, neighbors, and members of our collective community, announcing that the government must tolerate — and even respect — their views despite its disagreement with them.
The Supreme Court forecasted which option it might choose with its opinion in Obergefell. It said that most folks who view marriage as an opposite-sex union are “reasonable and sincere people” and that they hold those beliefs “in good faith” without animosity toward anyone. The court also recognized that their beliefs are based not on ignorance or bigotry, but “on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises.”
While that ruling emphasized that the court was not “disparag[ing]” those timeless beliefs about marriage, many ignored that. Sadly, what preceded and followed Obergefell was a wave of hostility toward people like Jack Phillips.
They have been called all manner of offensive names, and many have faced the terror of death threats. In fact, Jack has had people threaten to “shoot [him] in the head” and “kill [him] with a machete.” It reached the point that his wife was “too afraid to set foot in [their] shop.”
Others who share Jack’s beliefs have been driven out of business by government-imposed penalties, calls for boycotts, and other punishment. The situation reached a fever pitch — civility nowhere in sight.
With its decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, the court welcomed back at least one of those displaced members of our community, clarifying that the state was wrong to punish him in the first place. There is room enough for all of us — whether we embrace, question, or oppose same-sex marriage — in the public life of our nation.
The Supreme Court made clear that the government must respect the beliefs of people of faith like Jack.
No longer on the outside looking in, Jack now reclaims his rightful place as a full-fledged citizen whose state cannot demean his religious beliefs. That will be the lasting legacy of Masterpiece Cakeshop.