Home Opinion Dear Editor Cake decision reflects Constitution’s intent

Cake decision reflects Constitution’s intent


Copyright © 2021 Roswell Daily Record

I am thankful to see some sanity in our court system. In a recent Supreme Court decision, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court held by a 7-2 vote that the owner of the bakery, Jack Phillips, was within his rights to refuse, on religious grounds, to provide a cake for a homosexual wedding.

Some people are going to jump on this and insist the decision legalized “hate” against homosexuals. Clearly wrong! A businessman cannot refuse all services to someone because that person is homosexual. He can refuse a particular service that clearly violates his religious convictions.

Should we force a Muslim-owned business to cater a Bar Mitzvah? Should we force a black printer to make fliers for a white supremacy convention? Should we require an atheist to make a cake with a Bible verse? Why should a Christian who believes God ordained marriage as between one man and one woman be persecuted for refusing to make a cake for a homosexual wedding? We should point out that Muslims do not approve of homosexual marriage either. Should we persecute them if they refuse services for a homosexual wedding?

If we go to washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/5/video-puts-muslim-bakeries-florists-in-gay-rights-/ we find that Muslim-owned bakeries have refused to make cakes for homosexual weddings. Where is the outrage? Since we’ve heard none, though this video went viral, is it not clear that Christians are being singled out?

Let’s look at the First Amendment in its entirety. “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” Notice there’s to be no hindering the free exercise of religion.

Support Local Journalism
Subscribe to the Roswell Daily Record today.

We must remember Supreme Court Decision Abington v. Schempp 1963. “The State may not establish a ‘religion of secularism’ in the sense of affirmatively opposing or showing hostility to religion, thus ‘preferring those who believe in no religion over those who do believe.’”

In recent decades, many people concluded that the First Amendment means, “We must respect every belief except Christianity.”

We must hope this recent decision will be the first of many continuing steps toward the original intent of our Constitution.

Russell A. Scott

Previous articleGround breaks on national franchise restaurant; Combined Dunkin’ Donuts and Baskin Robbins is slated to open on North Main in late 2018
Next articleNora Edith Isaacs