Let's be clear here:
Masterpiece Cakeshop is being harassed. Period.
Scardina had filed a previous lawsuit against Phillips following her request for a cake – an order she placed the day of the SCOTUS ruling. Previous reports say Scardina’s order was for a cake celebrating her gender transition.
"The day of the SCOTUS ruling".
Clear harassment.
I also blame The Court for this. The case should have been decided on clear 1st and 14th Amendment grounds which would have put an end to this harassment by making those attempting to harass the cakeshop liable for civil rights violations. But let's go on.
The newest lawsuit claims Phillips discriminated against Scardina and used deceptive and unfair trade practices.
“The dignity of all citizens in our state needs to be honored. Masterpiece Cakeshop said before the Supreme Court they would serve any baked good to members of the LGBTQ community. It was just the religious significance of it being a wedding cake,” Griesen said. “We don’t believe they’ve been honest with the public.”
In the complaint’s text, Scardina’s attorneys cite testimony in previous court proceedings: “Mr. Phillips, for himself and on behalf of Masterpiece Cakeshop, confirmed that they would happily make the exact same cake requested by Ms. Scardina for other customers.”
So the pin here is that since Mr. Phillips said he would make the exact same cake for other customers, he, therefore, should make that cake for them too. On the surface this looks like a slam dunk argument. I've even said that the cake shop would be discriminating if it refused to sell
a cake to any homosexual. However; that isn't the issue here.
Let's go back to the statement about the wedding cake. Obviously, it could have been said that Mr. Phillips would have made the exact same cake (or AN exactly identical cake) for a heterosexual couple. The issue wasn't directly about "the cake" but the purposes of the cake. Mr. Phillips operates his business in a way that expresses his Christian faith. Standard Christianity is clear that marriage is between a man and a woman (male and female). Mr. Phillips refusal to make the cake was his refusal to participate in a
behaviour that contradicted his
held beliefs.
This is what the Supreme Court should have ruled on rather than the state's hostility to Phillips beliefs.
The same exact thinking goes here. That Phillips would make the same exact cake for other customers is not relevant. Once the customer revealed the purpose to which they wanted the cake to be made for, Phillips retained the right to decline to participate based on his
clearly known beliefs.
The customer could have simply walked into Masterpiece and asked for the pink and blue birthday cake and declined to say what it was for. They could have told any story at all and gotten the cake. Instead, they wanted to force Phillips to participate and approve of their behavior.
What needs to be done here is for the SCOTUS to make clear that the states are prohibited from creating laws, commissions and the like that infringe on the 1st Amendment rights of citizens as stated in the 14th Amendment. Secondly, no one can be forced to participate in behavior that they do not wish to be associated with.
If YouTube can refuse service to anyone who runs afoul it's "rules", then so can Masterpiece.
If the protected Class framework stands in the way, then it's time to revisit and remove this legal concept as it is in contradiction to section 1 of the 14th Amendment. It is clear that some of these "classes" are using their super-citizen powers to disenfranchise "lesser citizens".
