A baker has struck again. This time in Belfast, in North Ireland. As reported by the New York Times, a Belfast baker refused to bake a cake with a message celebrating same-sex marriage back in 2014. Two years earlier, the owner of the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado had also refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. If this trend spreads, I am afraid, bakeries soon will spoon out more bitterness than sweetness. I am also concerned about an old acquaintance who had the habit to have untimely wishes written on cakes. For example, he would come to a Fourth of July party with a cake wishing us “Merry Christmas.” Luckily, back then he lived in Long Island, which, as part of the Northeastern US, is, in general, more lax about religious etiquette. But he now lives in Florida, where such pranks may not be received as kindly. I wonder whether a baker down there has put an end to his habit.
In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the US Supreme Court ruled that the baker’s religious beliefs had not been considered by a Colorado Commission when the case was referred to it. In the Belfast case, the British Supreme Court went much further by ruling that the baker’s refusal was not related to the identity of the customer as gay but rather to the content of the message which the baker had the right not to reproduce in accordance with his religious beliefs.
So, what’s with bakers? Are they stricter in their religious devotion; or more sensitive and protective of their right of free expression and speech? Could that spread to other business lines? And what would that mean for society?
Let’s start with the religious argument. Christian opposition to same-sex marriage is grounded on the New Testament story of the blessing of the wedding at Cana by Jesus, while opposition to same-sex relations is found in various commands in the Hebrew Bible. This original opposition took more intensity in the early centuries of the Christian Church from Paul to Augustine as Christian Fathers developed a more fundamental aversion – some would say hostility – to all matters of sex. Some of that aversion reflected a deliberate effort to put more distance between Christian and pagan morals and a larger part was due to putting soul above body as the road to salvation. There is no reference, though, in the Gospels, as far as I know, that Jesus directly said anything against same-sex love. After all, Jesus commanded his followers to “Love one another as I love you.” Jesus also preached tolerance and forgiveness. He admonished that when we are slapped on one cheek we should turn the other. The Lord’s Prayer also admonishes “And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive them that trespass against us.” Reflecting the spirit against self-righteousness Pope Francis responded “who am I to judge that person?” meaning a gay person. I wonder, therefore, why these bakers, and possibly other professed Christians who find themselves in similar situations, do not abide by the message of Jesus and the Lord’s Prayer in a show of tolerance toward fellow human beings. Are they after all free of trespass to disapprove of the trespasses of others? In “The Evolution of God” Robert Wright makes the case that over millennia of human life, people’s understanding of deity has evolved toward a more inclusive and benevolent Creator. It is unfortunate that this evolution has eluded a significant segment of Christians as well as the adherents of other religions.
Now let’s turn to the argument made on the basis of one’s right of free speech and expression (a right recognized in the First Amendment to the US Constitution). As I mentioned above, the US Supreme Court has not yet decided on the right of a business to refuse to reproduce an unacceptable message or symbol. But the British Supreme Court did. Having to choose between the right of the party that wishes to express something and the right of the party that must assist in the production of expression, the British Court decided the right of the second party is stronger and should prevail.
Because this decision may also come to pass in the US, it should raise concerns for all of us regardless of our views toward homosexuality. Suppose I wish to print a book critical of Christianity or another religion (since the refusal right would apply to all religious beliefs), the printer has the right to refuse. And if this shop is the only one, I have to find printing services elsewhere. If a consortium of religious organizations raises the capital to buy all the printing presses in a town, or county, or state, or …. , then no newspaper or book deemed offensive can be printed. Isn’t this what happened in the Dark Ages and even later under the command and influence of the Church? If those that mediate in the production of speech and expression are granted the right to object on various personal grounds, what is the future of free speech?
I cannot tell how the US Supreme Court will eventually rule in a case involving the refusal of service on religious grounds. What I do know, however, is that, in the US, there are a couple of much worse cases of violations of the First Amendment when it comes to religious freedom and the separation of church and state. In the first case, we are forced to transact in a currency that bears the message “In God We Trust.” How does that not violate the right of atheists, agnostics and even religious people who find it offensive to mention God at all or so cavalierly in a government instrument. The second violation occurs every day when millions of American pupils as well as others on other occasions recite “one nation under God” as part of the Pledge of Allegiance. Mind you that “under God” was added in 1954 and “In God We Trust” in 1956 as a result of the anticommunism hysteria spawned during the McCarthy era. Neither of them was found to be necessary or appropriate for the national currency or the pledge in prior times in accordance with the US constitution which entrusts the wellbeing and fate of the nation not on any deity but on the people.
Let's Reason 
you raise several interesting issues I fear what may come to pass if his line of thinking becomes contagious
LikeLike
What’s scary is that people don’t know enough about history and politics. The same people who go on about “fighting for our freedom” and “fighting for our democracy” are the ones who don’t exactly know what our freedom is meant to look like. They are the ones who want the pledge of allegiance, they are the ones who want “in God we trust.”
LikeLike