Given this is (in)Justice Kennedy, the ruling is not a complete victory for sanity, reality, and religion. But it is a partial victory. And considering Kennedy’s unfamiliarity with rational reasoning, it is a delightful victory because few expected it.
I did not, predicting SCOTUS would punt and claim baker Jack Philips was in his rights refusing to bake a cake when gmarriage was at the time not recognized in his state. (Gmarriage is government-defined marriage, which is not actual marriage, which can only be between a man and woman.)
I was close, though. The court did say that “Given the State’s position at the time [of not recognizing gmarriages], there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful.”
It All Depends on “Some”
That reason was not decisive, though. Instead the majority ruled that “religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.”
Note carefully that “some”. Meaning, of course, that religious and philosophical objections to fictional marriages are in some cases not protected forms of expression.
And just what might these extraordinary cases be, monsieur Kennedy? He never says. This leaves a gap wide enough to slam your fist through. Kennedy’s watery language will encourage the bringing of suits by non-procreative-sex fanatics who are sure their situation is the exception that requires Christians to put a pinch of incense into the flames.
Kennedy’s feigned shock that non-procreative-sex fanatics used his original gmarriage decisions to disparage Christians is nauseating. All his talk of love and irrational animus guaranteed fanatics would fly at Christians with talons sharpened.
Of Two Minds
Thus his tut-tutting carries little weight when he writes that:
[S]ome of [Colorados’] commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.
It was Kennedy himself who in Obergefell—the gmarriage imposition ruling—implied that opposing gmarriage was hateful. You cannot blame State Commissions for following his lead. They thought they’d get away with it…
All We Need Is Wuv
Maybe this is Kennedy staying with his love theme. But the Supreme Court, though it can impose gmarriage, cannot impose love. He tries, though….
The Lack of Free Association
If the Court never abandoned freedom of association—with its implied freedom of disassociation—we’d never have to have these impossible debates. Now mine is a minority opinion, but consider that if there was true freedom of association, any baker could refuse any customer, and any citizen could refuse to buy any product (such as health insurance). The government would have never arrogated itself the “right” to impose gmarriage.
True freedom of association is dead. Even mentioning its revivification causes shrieks of terror….It means that you should click here to read the rest.