LGBT Community Fearful as SCOTUS Hears Christofascist "Religious Freedom" Claims

Christofascist Jack Phillips argues that he is above the non-discrimination laws.

Today the Supreme Court of the United States heard oral arguments in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case and reports of the arguments left many in the LGBT community with a sense of foreboding and fear that five of the Justices might buy into the disingenuous arguments of Jack Phillips, a Christofascist bigot, which could unleash a gutting of the nation's civil rights laws and public accommodation laws. My views may offend some, but I view religion and religious belief as one of the most toxic and deadly forces on the planet.  Millennia of history has shown millions murdered or  persecuted in the name of religion.  Even now, the horrific crimes being committed by Islamic extremists underscores the reason why religious belief should never override the rule of law.   Should the Court buy the insidious arguments of Phillips and his counsel (provided by a certified hate group) gays will be but the first to see their legal protections gutted as a consequence.  A piece in the Washington Post looks at today's oral arguments.  Note, this is the first time the U.S. Department of Justicve has ever filed briefs supporting discrimination.  Here are excerpts:

The Supreme Court seemed closely divided Tuesday over whether the First Amendment protects a Colorado baker from creating a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, with Justice Anthony M. Kennedy likely to cast the deciding vote.

Kennedy, who wrote the court’s 5 to 4 decision in 2015 saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, speculated about what might happen if a decision in baker Jack C. Phillips’s favor prompted requests for bakers across the country to refuse to make cakes for same-sex couples. Would the federal government feel vindicated? Kennedy asked.

On the flip side, just moments later, Kennedy sharply questioned Colorado Solicitor General Frederick R. Yarger. The justice seemed offended by a comment made during the deliberations of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission when one commissioner said: “And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to — to use their religion to hurt others.”

The rest of the court seemed to line up as expected. Liberal justices worried that an exception for Phillips would gut public accommodations laws that require businesses to serve the public without discriminating because of race, gender, religion and, in the case of Colorado and more than 20 other states, sexual orientation.

The court’s conservatives were concerned with what Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said was a “disturbing record” from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals, which ruled against Phillips.David D. Cole, legal director for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represents the couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, acknowledged there were complicated issues, but they did not apply to Phillips’s decision that he would not create a cake for the couple.  “All he knew was that they were gay,” Cole said.

Several of the liberal justices questioned what other types of business owners would be exempt if the court made an exception for Phillips.

The Trump administration filed a brief on behalf of Phillips; supporters of the couple said it was the first time the government has argued for an exemption to an anti-discrimination law.U.S. Solicitor General Noel J. Francisco, representing the Trump administration, told the court Tuesday that the exemption should apply only to a narrow category of business owners who should not be forced to create or contribute to an event they disagree with on the basis of their religious beliefs. . . . When asked where to draw the line, he said the justices should ask whether the creation is “predominantly expressive” in its purpose and whether customers are paying a premium for it.

Phillips contends that dual guarantees in the First Amendment — for free speech and for the free exercise of religion — protect him against Colorado’s public accommodations law, which requires businesses to serve customers equally regardless of “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”

Scattered across the country, florists, bakers, photographers and others have claimed that being forced to offer their wedding services to same-sex couples violates their rights. Courts have routinely turned down the business owners — as the Colorado Court of Appeals did in the Phillips, saying that state anti-discrimination laws require businesses that are open to the public to treat all potential customers equally.

[T]he Colorado Civil Rights Commission. . . . .  ruled against Phillips, and the appeals court upheld the decision.

“Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage,” Judge Daniel M. Taubman wrote. “However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, [the law] prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation.”

Every decent American - which sadly seemingly excludes evangelical Christians who support Phillips and want to be free to discriminate against others - should hope and pray that the Court rules against Jack Phillips.