• Skip to main content
  • Skip to secondary menu
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
Catholic Review

Catholic Review

Inspiring the Archdiocese of Baltimore

Menu
  • Home
  • News
        • Local News
        • World News
        • Vatican News
        • Obituaries
        • Featured Video
        • En Español
        • Sports News
        • Official Clergy Assignments
        • Schools News
  • Commentary
        • Contributors
          • Question Corner
          • George Weigel
          • Effie Caldarola
          • John Garvey
          • Father Ed Dougherty, M.M.
          • Guest Commentary
        • CR Columnists
          • Archbishop William E. Lori
          • Rita Buettner
          • Christopher Gunty
          • George Matysek Jr.
          • Father Joseph Breighner
          • Father Collin Poston
          • Robyn Barberry
          • Hanael Bianchi
          • Amen Columns
  • Entertainment
        • Events
        • Movie & Television Reviews
        • Arts & Culture
        • Books
        • Recipes
  • About Us
        • Contact Us
        • Our History
        • Meet Our Staff
        • Photos to own
        • Books/CDs/Prayer Cards
        • CR Media platforms
        • Electronic Edition
  • Advertising
  • Shop
        • Purchase Photos
        • Books/CDs/Prayer Cards
  • CR Radio
  • News Tips
  • Subscribe

Of wedding cakes and our tenuous freedoms

June 6, 2018
By Richard Doerflinger
Filed Under: A More Human Society, Commentary

On June 4, in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court delivered a limited victory for religious freedom.

Jack Phillips, a devoutly Christian baker, declined to use his artistry to create a custom wedding cake for two men, because his faith holds that marriage is only between one man and one woman. The men sued, and he was found guilty of violating Colorado’s law against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court decided 7-2 that Colorado’s civil rights commission violated Phillips’ First Amendment right to free exercise of religion.

Seven justices agreed that one or both of the following facts, which may or may not apply in future cases, were decisive. First, the commission exhibited hostility toward Phillips’ faith, with some members suggesting that religion is often an excuse for injustice.

Second, the same commission had rejected claims against bakers who refused (apparently on secular grounds) to bake cakes with messages against gay marriage. So the commission went after Phillips because he is a man of faith, and/or because his particular religious beliefs offend them. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion found that his religious objection “was not considered with the neutrality that the free exercise clause requires.”

Here the consensus ends.

Justices Elena Kagan and Stephen Breyer discounted the second prong of the court’s argument. They said the bakers who refused to decorate cakes with anti-gay messages objected to the message itself, whereas Phillips refused to produce the same kind of cake for same-sex couples that he would have made for any opposite-sex couple. So these cases are different.

In rebuttal, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch observed that whatever else a wedding cake may say, it communicates the basic fact that “this is a wedding.” And that is exactly the claim that Phillips’ faith could not endorse.

Justices Samuel Alito, Gorsuch and Thomas favored a more ringing defense of Phillips’ religious freedom — and the last two would decide in his favor on free speech grounds as well, as he was being compelled to redefine marriage in a way contradictory to his faith. (As the late Justice Antonin Scalia said in dissenting from the court’s landmark 2015 decision on same-sex marriage, Phillips’ view of marriage was, “until 15 years ago, the unanimous judgment of all generations and all societies.”)

Ironies abound in the justices’ opinions.

Kennedy’s opinion is ironic because the prejudice against religious views of marriage that he criticizes in Colorado officials can be found in his own 2015 opinion on same-sex marriage. While he gave lip service to the idea that “reasonable and sincere people” may disagree with the court, he also suggested that such people are guilty of bigotry and ignorance. So Kennedy’s rhetoric helped create the problem in Colorado. Either he has mellowed since or he is not very self-aware.

There is also irony, perhaps deliberate, in conservative justices’ argument for Phillips’ freedom of speech. To those who say decorating a custom wedding cake is not speech, they cite past decisions sacred to the most liberal judges: It is at least as much “speech” as nude dancing, cross burning by white supremacists and flag burning.

And in answer to those who say Phillips’ views are too offensive to protect, they cite a past court decision declaring that other people’s finding a view offensive “is a reason for according it constitutional protection.” The court said that in defense of the free speech of Hustler magazine.

So for now, Christians who accept the millennia-old definition of marriage have as much constitutional protection as racists and pornographers. And some justices disagree even with that.

Copyright ©2018 Catholic News Service/U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Print Print

Primary Sidebar

Richard Doerflinger

Richard Doerflinger, who worked for 36 years in the Secretariat of Pro-Life Activities of the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, writes the "A More Human Society" column for Catholic News Service. (CNS photo/Bob Roller)

View all posts from this author

| Recent Commentary |

Question Corner: Burning or burying sacramentals? And why use holy water?

Centered on Christ

Resolution Revival: Assemble a team to get back to your goals

Happy Chinese New Year! Welcome to the Year of the Rabbit (7 Quick Takes)

How is God like a flyswatter? (answered by ChatGPT and a human)

| Recent Local News |

Mercy delivers Magic show in ‘Classic’ victory over Maryvale

Catholic Charities assists in counting Baltimore’s homeless population

Gov. Moore’s budget cuts BOOST, proposes phase-out of scholarship program

‘I love you, Papa!’: Maryland Catholics recall encounters with Pope Benedict XVI

RADIO INTERVIEW: Catholic Charities of Baltimore

| Catholic Review Radio |

CatholicReview · Catholic Review Radio

Footer

Our Vision

Real Life. Real Faith. 

Catholic Review Media communicates the Gospel and its impact on people’s lives in the Archdiocese of Baltimore and beyond.

Our Mission

Catholic Review Media provides intergenerational communications that inform, teach, inspire and engage Catholics and all of good will in the mission of Christ through diverse forms of media.

Contact

Catholic Review
320 Cathedral Street
Baltimore, MD 21201
443-524-3150
mail@CatholicReview.org

 

Social Media

  • Facebook
  • Instagram
  • Twitter
  • YouTube

Recent

  • Mercy delivers Magic show in ‘Classic’ victory over Maryvale
  • Former priest Frank Pavone, head of Priests for Life, faces sexual misconduct allegations
  • Analysis: As GOP primary season nears, will pro-lifers embrace Trump or hold out for a new hero?
  • Mission begins by meeting Jesus in the Scriptures and Eucharist, pope says
  • Catholic Charities assists in counting Baltimore’s homeless population
  • Bishop’s heroic crusade against America’s suicide epidemic is personal
  • Gov. Moore’s budget cuts BOOST, proposes phase-out of scholarship program
  • Ukraine’s religious leaders renew invitation to pope to visit Kyiv
  • ‘I love you, Papa!’: Maryland Catholics recall encounters with Pope Benedict XVI

Search

Membership

Catholic Press Association of the United States and Canada

Maryland-Delaware-DC Press Association

The Associated Church Press

© 2023 CATHOLIC REVIEW MEDIA, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED