Crybullies Lose at Supreme Court – For Now

David Mullins and Charlie Craig are bullies of the worst kind – they demand the state use thuggish violence against someone who upset them, while claiming to be virtuous victims themselves.  That’s what makes them crybullies.  A real bully would risk his own nose in the scuffle at least, but not this pair.  They wanted Jack Phillips to decorate a cake for their event, and he refused. In every day in every way around the world, if you want somebody to do something and they don't want to, that's the end of the conversation. That's what makes a civilized society. Not here, where the groom and groom decided Phillips would do what they said, or else.

Narrow or Broad?

And so began the latest battle in the statist attempts to have all behavior either mandated or forbidden.  Masterpiece Cakeshop was decided, as LN reported, narrowly.  That term has become quite popular in major news stories about the case and has seen some pushback by conservatives.  The conservative Christian Jack Phillips won the case, and the vote was 7-2.  How then could the decision be seen as narrow?

You have the right to remain silent.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.

You have the right to an attorney.

If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you by the court.

Those Miranda warnings are named for the case that made them become a part of many arrests, plus every cop show and movie.  They are the implementation of a bright line rule.   If the police follow the rules as laid out by the court in the opinion, then they will likely rule a custodial interrogation was performed legally.  Did you give the Miranda warnings?  Okay – you’re good to go.

Red Velvet

If you are a baker who does not wish to bake a cake for a homosexual wedding, are you allowed to refuse?  This case gives you no guidance.  That’s why it’s called narrow.  Colorado officials exhibited such hostility to religion, Christianity, and Mr. Phillips expression of faith in their dealings with the issue that the Supreme Court said those abuses amounted to an impermissible violation of Phillips right to be free to practice his religion without such bigotry.

The SCOTUSblog symposium on the case reports:

In the most egregious of the hostile statements, one commissioner blamed religion and religious freedom for slavery and the Holocaust and added that “it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others.” The Supreme Court held such statements “inappropriate” in an adjudicatory body charged with “fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.”

So, if you’re a baker and your state’s Human Rights Commission treats you thusly, you know where you stand.  There will likely not be any future litigants who meet these facts, because the bigots in the government will be more secretive.  As SCOTUSblog continues:

The opponents of religious exemptions will now start doing the sorts of things done by many other government officials resisting constitutional mandates. They will seek doctrinal and rhetorical manipulations to cloak their hostility to the constitutional right, and their unequal treatment of objectors they agree with and objectors they don’t.

Where then does that leave all those who engage in commercial creative endeavors?  Perhaps a florist will generate a case with more widespread precedence.  Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed are homosexual crybullies from Washington.  They think Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene's Flowers and Gifts, has to do what they say or else because they’re gay.  The would-be tyrants were served for years by Stutzman, a Southern Baptist, who happily provided for their floral needs that did not violate her sincere faith.  She politely refused to design works for the wedding, and Ingersoll and Freed have brought the state government to bear against Stutzman.

Let’s hope Washington state officials can effectively conceal their contempt for Stutzman so that a “clean” case can advance to the Supreme Court.  Stutzman wants to live in that ever-vanishing place between what is mandatory and what is forbidden.  That’s where freedom lives.  Are there five Supreme Court justices who will let her – and the rest of us – live there?