Monday, June 26, 2017
NYT: Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage"The Supreme Court agreed on Monday to hear an appeal from a Colorado baker with religious objections to same-sex marriage who had lost a discrimination case for refusing to create a cake to celebrate such a union."
MY COMMENT APPEARING IN THE NYT at http://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/26/us/politics/supreme-court-wedding-cake-gay-couple-masterpiece-cakeshop.html?comments#permid=23011710
Why Mr. Phillips admits that he could make other items which he would sell to a gay couple with the exception of a cake, I do not know. Yes, in my opinion, the argument against the plaintiff is similar to persons of color eating anywhere they choose. As long as that business serves the public that business cannot refuse to serve them as they are part of that public.
The understanding of human sexuality has widened. We know most do not choose to be gay. Most, I aver, would say sexual feelings have been felt since early childhood. Why would a homosexual want to encounter so much that is adversarial to live as he feels he should unless that feeling were so strong it could not be denied?
How is it fair, If by biological mandate one was made to feel an attraction solely to one's own sex, to deny one the joys that everyone else takes for granted in a culture? Mr. Phillips opened up his business to serve the public. Gays are part of that public like it or not. No one is asking Mr. Phillips to marry a man but merely to serve all gay or straight persons who enter his store.
What if the myriad of customers Mr. Phillips serves do not believe in HIS faith? Will a finding for the plaintiff by SCOTUS mean that Mr. Phillips may discriminate against, for example, Jews or even Unitarians who do not and may not believe in the divinity of Christ?
The finding of this case comes down to the fairness doctrine. What is fair in our arguably more scientifically modern secular democratic nation?