Masterpiece Cakeshop and the Rebirth of Bigotry or Surprise! Happy Pride!

Photo by Claire Anderson on Unsplash

Yeah. No. Not going to make it to Thursday, the day I’ve designated for my political diatribe. Not in this Age of the Rebirth of Bigotry and the Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.

Have I read the decision?

I’ll tell you straight out I have not. I could barely stomach the syllabus or summary. I’ve done an informational skim at best. It’s a plurality opinion, meaning enough Justices concurred in the ruing of the case for the outcome, but wrote separate opinions disagreeing in some areas.

Apparently now, according to the Supreme Court of the United States, it’s not OK to be hostile toward “sincerely held religious beliefs,” even if those “sincerely held religious beliefs” are “I wish to discriminate against people who are different than me.” Which is just the shot in the arm the rising nazi movement and the seething bigotry in this country need, amirite?

Justice Kennedy, I’m so ashamed of you. The other Conservative Clowns, I’d expect it from them, but you’ve shown over the years that you can be better, that you have been better. Guess those days are gone. And Justices Kagan and Breyer.

Really.

In ruling that the Masterpiece Cakeshop owners can discriminate against gay people because “ow! My religion,” the Court, no matter how limited its holding, has opened the door to a wide range of discrimination. Goodbye bar mitzvah cakes, hello “Hitler was framed!” collection.

So long as the hatred can be framed as a “sincerely held religious belief,” you’re good.

The Court claimed that cake-making was a form of “artistic” speech, and forcing the poor put-upon baker — just a man and his prejudices — to imply he wasn’t prejudiced and filled with hate violated his Free Exercise of religion.

Because prejudice.

Is apparently.

Now constitutionally.

Protected.*

Tough to know if without seat purloiner and in-over-his-header Gorsuch, this case would have gone this way. Given Kagan and Breyer’s joining in the majority, who knows.

So here we are, all three branches of government smiling in the face of floundering freedom. Don’t worry, “Christians,” you don’t have to love thy neighbor anymore.

The Supreme Court said so.

*UPDATE: The ACLU, in analyzing the decision, specifically says this ruling is not a right to discriminate. I suspect it will, however, be used as one, and the issue will reach the Supreme Court again.

The ruling is narrow, meaning, like Bush v. Gore, it’s an outcome limited to a specific set of facts. Am I buying the shrugs around this ruling?

Not in this climate, I’m not.

The analysis of the ACLU (please note, it’s a thread):