While the CJEU, with yesterday’s decision to impose on Member States an obligation to give legal effect to “marriages” concluded by persons of the same sex, is heading down the pernicious road of judicial activism, the Supreme Court of the United States has made an important step back towards reason and common sense. In a 7-2 ruling in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court found that the applicant, a baker, was in his right to refuse an order by a sodomite couple to bake a wedding cake with obscene decorations for the purpose of celebrating their “marriage”.
There is clearly a shift in the perception of homosexualist activists, which are facing increasing difficulties in holding themselves out as victims of “discrimination”. What lies beneath the case at hand clearly was an intentional and malevolent set-up: two sodomite bullies on the lookout for a Christian baker whom they could force, with the help of an overreaching “equality law”, to act against his own moral convictions. Just for the joy of bullying others.
The decision was adopted by a much clearer vote than expected, which means that even three of the judges who in 2016 had voted in favour of the infamous Obergefell Decision (through which the legalization of sodo-“marriage” was imposed nationwide) considered that the notion that sodomites should be able to avail themselves of anti-discrimination laws to push their sexual perversions down the throats of everyone else goes a bridge too far. In particular, the decision focuses on the bias and imbalance apparent in the case law of the defendant Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which on the one hand found that atheist (and pro-sodomy) bakers may refuse an order to bake a cake that would give expression to bible teachings on sodomy, while on the other hand Christian bakers have no right to refuse baking a cake that glories sexual perversion.
Liberal judges Kagan and Breyer wrote a concurring opinion in which they tried to mitigate the decision, saying that Colorado has in principle the right to force bakers to bake cakes with messages they don’t endorse, if only they avoid exhibiting such an extreme ideological bias as seems to have underpinned the actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They clearly want this to remain an isolated decision in one particular case, not a landmark decision with wider impacts.
Liberal Justice Ginsburg (supported by Justice Sotomayor) made a fool of herself by claiming, in her dissenting opinion, that the applicant had refused to sell a “wedding cake”, which he would have sold to any other customer, to a same-sex couple solely on the grounds of their homosexual orientation. It is astonishing to see two members of the highest judicial instance of the US misrepresenting the facts of the case they are called to decide in order to push their questionable agenda: in actual fact what the defendant had done was that he refused creating a cake according to the particular specifications of customers, which would have included decorations that would celebrate sodomy. This is, more than anything else, a case concerning the freedom of speech.
Whilst the outcome of the case is, on the whole satisfactory, there are questions that will require further clarification.
Firstly, the way in which “equality” is set against “freedom of religion” is rather unfortunate. In reality, everyone should have the right to refuse being compelled into making statements that contradict his or her true convictions. It should not be required to give any justifications, let alone justifications based on a particular religious belief. The truth is: not only devout Christians will refuse making a contribution to the celebration of sodomite “weddings”, but any reasonable and decent person will do the same. Only irrational and/or immoral people will endorse sodo-“marriages”. Normal people don’t. Framing this case in terms of “religious freedom” is thus a misconception.
Secondly, even if in this particular instance Justice Ginsburg’s objections were counterfactual and disingenuous, they do point to a larger question: does the baker’s freedom of conscience allow him only to refuse baking cakes that comprise a clear and explicit endorsement of sodomy or sodo-“marriage”? Or does the decision mean that any professional or salesman has the right to refuse making any contribution to the celebration of obscenity? Wedding cakes can comprise explicit statements (e.g., if they y depict two brides, or two grooms), but this is not necessarily the case. Would the baker have had the right to refuse selling also a more “neutral” cake if he had reason to believe that it was for a sodo-“marriage”? What about the florist, or the caterer, or the music band, or the owner of the location?
The whole idea of constraining salesmen to offer their goods and services to everyone (and thus of limiting their contractual freedom, which in itself is an essential human right) stems from a time when there were white salesmen who refused serving coloured persons. The LGBT-lobby has in the past been extremely clever in exploiting the past sufferings of victims of racism. But there is a clear difference between belonging to a particular race (for which a person has no responsibility) and engaging in, or promoting, aberrant sexual behaviours (on which a moral judgment is not only possible, but also necessary)! The Masterpiece Decision is thus a step into the right direction, but many more such steps will have to be made.
agendaeurope.wordpress.com 
You must be logged in to post a comment.