So claims The Donald, or at least he did while on the campaign trail. (Has he ever gotten off the campaign trail? I mean, have you ever heard of a president who holds campaign rallies his first year in office?)
At any rate, under the leadership of arch-bigot Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the DoJ has file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission -- in support of the "Christian" baker:
The brief is here. It's pretty much a rehash of the right wing's anti-LGBT talking points in this and similar cases: making a cake is "participating" in the wedding, making a custom cake is "artistic expression" covered by the First Amendment, Phillips' religious beliefs preclude him doing anything that might indicate support for same-sex marriage, etc., etc., etc. It's basically the same arguments that have lost in court in case after case.
My own take is simply that, if you are offering such things as custom cakes to the general public, you're a public accommodation doing work for hire. I've free-lanced as a writer and editor, and the basic rule is, you produce what the client wants.
I think the ruling precedent here is Employment Division v. Smith, in which no less than Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated: "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate."
I'm really sort of surprised that the Court decided to hear this case.
What's most significant in this instance, however, is the administration's continued assault on civil right, starting with LGBTs -- but don't think that will be the end of it. (Note: don't forget Trump's ban on transgender service in the military, and Betsy DeVos' Education Department rescinding the Obama administration's guidance on treatment of transgender students. But they're not against all civil rights: DeVos really wants to be sure the rights of rapists on college campuses are observed.)
Should the Court find in favor of the bigots, it's going to torpedo every nondiscrimination law in the country; even a narrowly drawn decision would be a foot in the door, in line with the right's "chipping away" strategy that they've used against Roe v. Wade and have attempted to use against Obergefell v. Hodges and is the motivating force behind the "religious freedom" laws that have been popping up in state legislatures.
The bright side is that Anthony Kennedy is still on the Court, so as of now, the Court has the majority that gave us Windsor and Obergefell. Cross your fingers and pray for the continued good health of that majority.
At any rate, under the leadership of arch-bigot Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III, the DoJ has file an amicus brief with the Supreme Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission -- in support of the "Christian" baker:
Via press release from the ACLU:
The Justice Department filed a brief today with the Supreme Court arguing that businesses that are open to the public have a constitutional right to discriminate against LGBT people.
The brief was filed in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the case in which a Colorado bakery refused to serve a same-sex couple seeking a cake for their wedding reception. Lower courts have previously found that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated Colorado’s non-discrimination law when it refused service to David Mullins and Charlie Craig.
The brief is here. It's pretty much a rehash of the right wing's anti-LGBT talking points in this and similar cases: making a cake is "participating" in the wedding, making a custom cake is "artistic expression" covered by the First Amendment, Phillips' religious beliefs preclude him doing anything that might indicate support for same-sex marriage, etc., etc., etc. It's basically the same arguments that have lost in court in case after case.
My own take is simply that, if you are offering such things as custom cakes to the general public, you're a public accommodation doing work for hire. I've free-lanced as a writer and editor, and the basic rule is, you produce what the client wants.
I think the ruling precedent here is Employment Division v. Smith, in which no less than Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, stated: "We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate."
I'm really sort of surprised that the Court decided to hear this case.
What's most significant in this instance, however, is the administration's continued assault on civil right, starting with LGBTs -- but don't think that will be the end of it. (Note: don't forget Trump's ban on transgender service in the military, and Betsy DeVos' Education Department rescinding the Obama administration's guidance on treatment of transgender students. But they're not against all civil rights: DeVos really wants to be sure the rights of rapists on college campuses are observed.)
Should the Court find in favor of the bigots, it's going to torpedo every nondiscrimination law in the country; even a narrowly drawn decision would be a foot in the door, in line with the right's "chipping away" strategy that they've used against Roe v. Wade and have attempted to use against Obergefell v. Hodges and is the motivating force behind the "religious freedom" laws that have been popping up in state legislatures.
The bright side is that Anthony Kennedy is still on the Court, so as of now, the Court has the majority that gave us Windsor and Obergefell. Cross your fingers and pray for the continued good health of that majority.
No comments:
Post a Comment