Decision on Gay Wedding Cakes

John Reid
Tuesday, June 5th
00:07:01

Transcript - Not for consumer use. Robot overlords only. Will not be accurate.

It was a Monday yesterday so you wind up with the rulings from the supreme court's. And this one raised a lot of eyebrows this related to the the baker case you know those booms Christian baker who said that he. Declined apparently very politely but said I'm not willing to bake a cake for your gay weddings and a gay couple in question was deeply offended. And instead of going after him on line or taking their business elsewhere they decided to file a lawsuit. And it has worked its way up to the Supreme Court. Timothy six is a professor of constitutional law at William and Mary and I'm glad to have you here today because I was. Watching my FaceBook feed yesterday that the people on both sides my my right wing conservative friends and all my gay friends in DC. Who just were all bizarre about this and arguing back and forth about what. The decision for us from the Supreme Court actually meant to so if you can give me indeed. 32 synopsis of what the decision was and maybe that's a good place for us to start. Or thanks for having me yeah and heavier. The decision. Doesn't tell us very much about the larger issue with it whether or not there is the Serb broad religious exemption the anti discrimination laws that apply to you. Gay and lesbian. So what it does say is that if you're going to apply those laws. He's someone like go to Jack fellow critic Chris Baker. You have to keep current context that it not hostile to religion but didn't discriminate against religion. That doesn't diminish. The very idea. So that there is here religious objection to making. In this create a custom wedding cake and that's all the did didn't so it again it doesn't resolve the larger issue of redemptions to. Claim discrimination law that does not deal with it. The big issue that First Amendment greet each claiming. That most people were focused on the cake made its way to the Supreme Court. So what did the board if it's a board in Colorado that if that made this a decision originally what did they do that was wrong. Well there are a couple of different pork or one kit the division. Here's the Cape Canaveral commission. And the civil rights commissions. A decision that armored vehicle. And what the court says that body give Paul Kirk what two things help warn they ejected in some of their public comment they held a hearing on the cake in the their public comment day. Thought that thing that we're arguably derogatory. Oh with respect to. Religious objectors to warn Kate to comment terror on the commission. Compared religious objections chew argument that were made in favor of the Holocaust. For example or racial segregation and choke the court said that that infected the process where and our ability to religion and the government have to treat millions objections neutral into what I'm doing. Any other ground that the Justice Kennedy in the majority I needed. What that there were three other cases involving our feet speaker Cooper you can make cakes that that would have had I should say derogatory things about being the marriage accord on their fate. And they are no cases were permitted because they know. I even know their public accommodation that opened republic fitness. So again that's another example the court said of religious regroup not being treated neutrally. Or in the same perspective it's a secular prequel and. Well help me understand. Or resolve the dispute that I saw that was real. In occasion last night where people were arguing over the definition of narrow because the the the final vote if you will was seven to two so that's pretty lopsided. But then there was this argument over at the weather that was actually a narrow decision I think we're talking about two different. Elements of analysis here and I didn't wanna wait until we people last night but maybe you can clear enough. Yeah I think that's right if you count the justices heads start to the seventy decision that didn't seem Darrow. But the reasoning. It is what it narrow victory back there are very specific to this particular proceeding. You did it he GF. Although it doesn't say. That in the future Kate it's a commission like the one in Colorado. Treated religion where I neutrality. And without hostility. That it's quite likely. That the anti discrimination law could be enforced without regard to other religious objection. So inept and there are other statement in the opinion about that gay rights that give same sex couples. Some optimism about future cases. So deep in this particular instance on this record. You have comments made by commissioner that there be religion. That he didn't have that fifty and they come out. The different way than I've been to narrow in fact fail. I know you're probably loath to be critical of the Supreme Court and the justices in their judgment. But is this is this why is for us to continue to keep the door open for another elongated year long and I'm multi year debate over this. Specific issue I guarantee today there's somebody out there is gonna go knock on a Baker's door and they'll show up and unicorn costume with you know glitter. And trying to tick the guy often say don't you on not gonna make you a cake and MLB a lawsuit filed. Yeah I I think it's a fair criticism in Tikrit to mark the born cleric decisions that are from crank call minimalist. They don't resolve anything except that you speak before the party that is a core of the jurisdiction that's supposed to guide lower or clean litigant. Ended cage really good deed that and so there will be safe future cases to speaker switch photographers with drug makers. In those cases the majority knowledge is we'll have to be decided on their own track and so this part of the political culture wars because we'll simply. I continued. And the court critical on a different direction and there are few justices. Do you decide who would have decided the First Amendment to preach each claim and decree exercise claim. And would have granted broad exemption. In religious education. Oh yeah I think that the fair criticism that one authority scene are being made about this opinion. And it's not just that the opinion there are others that there have been criticized them similar crap. And so we just ring the bell on round one and get ready for a come to I guess Timothy Zabel professor of constitutional law at Lehman Mary. Really appreciate you joining us on the program this morning thank you so much for having me thank you.
READ MOREREAD LESS