The Supreme Court has heard the arguments in the case of the Colorado baker who told two married gay men “No cake for you!”
Now, the court has to find a solution that honors the deeply-held religious beliefs of the baker who could not in good conscience provide a cake, while at the same time, not honoring the deeply-held religious beliefs of those folks back in the 60s who could not in good conscience serve lunch to black people.
One solution would be to limit the religious protection only to speech, except that in this case, the “speech” is in the form of dessert.
If the court begins applying religious protection to dessert, where does it stop? Does it apply to the appetizer? What about the entree? And does it apply only to food?
If the baker can deny the cake, can the jeweler deny the wedding ring? Can the makeup artist withhold the eyeliner? Can the hairstylist refuse the gel? These questions actually came up!
Here’s a suggestion: How about when you decide not to make the cake, you don’t say why.
The reason we’re in this pickle is the baker came right out and said they don’t make cakes for gay weddings.
He could have said, “we don’t sell to liberals,” or, “I’m sorry, you guys are too fat for a cake.” But, instead, he instantly triggered Colorado’s discrimination law.
And, ultimately, this is why government gets more and more intrusive. There are just too many issues we refuse to settle on our own. We go to court instead. Which is the same as saying, “please, oh mighty bureaucrats, force an incomprehensible new rule on us.”
And that’s exactly what will happen.