Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission goes before the Supreme Court
Re: “In cake case, more wrongs than rights,” Dec. 3 George F. Will column.
George F. Will agrees that baker Jack Phillips violated Colorado law when he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple because, Phillips says, complying with their request would violate his freedom of speech. “Phillips ought to lose case,” says Will. But then Will blames the victims and claims it is the couple who have behaved “abominably” and caused Phillips “financial loss and emotional distress” by defending themselves in court against the baker’s abrogation of their legal rights.
The solution Will prefers is that the couple surrender their rights — and the rights of others like them — by going to another baker in the hope that the new baker won’t likewise use religious discrimination disguised as free speech to turn them down. Will would apparently be perfectly happy to allow Phillips to avoid court and continue breaking the law so as to insulate himself from further distress. Karl A. Yambert, Lafayette
Regarding the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, consider these scenarios:
A devout Muslim with a wonderful singing voice runs a small music business featuring his CDS. A Christian couple asks this Muslim to record a song for the wedding. The song includes the words: “Jesus, resurrected from the grave and God incarnate.” The Muslim man declines, saying his sincere religious beliefs prevent him from recording the song. Would the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) take action against him and inflict financial penalties for abiding by his convictions?
A non-religious couple asks a Jewish kosher deli with fantastic food to cater their wedding reception, but demand that ham be included on the menu. The deli refuses. Would the CCRC take action against this deli for its religious convictions?
One more question: Would legal action be taken only against Christians practicing their sincerely held beliefs or against people of all beliefs? Joseph Wright, Littleton
Jack Phillips has the right of refusal if he chooses not to provide a service to anybody for whatever reason. How is that discriminatory? That’s what’s so beautiful about our country, the freedom to do almost anything within reason and free enterprise. Free enterprise is the freedom to choose our businesses. The right to private property. The profit motive. Competition. Consumer sovereignty. The couple could have gone elsewhere for services. They cannot force somebody to do what they want. Magdalena Verástegui, Garland, Texas
Re: “Baker’s argument not a masterpiece,” Dec. 5 editorial.
In your editorial, you assert that baker Jack Phillips’ argument regarding his right to freedom of speech and religion is specious. You cite the possibility of others being victims of discrimination, such as a Jewish photographer refusing to photograph a Christian wedding. I certainly have no objection to gay couples’ right to marry, but whose argument really is specious — Phillips’ or yours? Imagine a neo-nazi asking for a swastika prominently displayed on a cake to be consumed at a rally against blacks and Jews. Should a baker be required to provide such a cake, or should his personal beliefs against such philosophies allow him to refuse? Slippery slopes can descend in many directions, some less desirable than others. Be careful what you ask for. Larry Bailey, Denver