The 411

There is an important case that will be heard on December 5 by the Supreme Court and it is very, very important for the trans and LGBQ community. It could affect our lives on a very basic level, employment, housing, credit, public accommodation, and government interactions.

Everything You Need To Know About The “Masterpiece Cakeshop” Case Before The Supreme Court
On December 5, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights, a case that could have great implications for LGBT rights.
#LetThemEatCake
NewNowNext
By Dan Avery
November 28, 2017

Here’s a quick primer on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights. Check back for more news as the suit progresses.

1. Who’s involved?
The plaintiffs are David Mullins and Charlie Craig (above). The defendant is Jack Phillips

2. What’s it about?
Mullins and Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012 with Craig’s mother, hoping to order a cake for their upcoming wedding. Phillips, the bakery’s owner, told them he couldn’t sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple because it violated his religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman. They filed suit with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, contending Phillips was violating the state’s anti-discrimination law.
[…]
3. When And where is it happening?
Oral arguments will be heard December 5, 2017, at the United States Supreme Court Building in Washington, D.C.

Okay now we get to the important part…

4. Why should I care?
At its heart, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights is not about cake: It’s about whether its legal to discriminate if it’s part of your religion. Phillips doesn’t deny he broke Colorado’s civil rights code—he believes the code is unconstitutional… If SCOTUS finds for Phillips, it’ll set a precedent that religious beliefs trump civil liberties.

That is why this could be literally very deadly for us; you could be rushed in to an emergency room and the staff to refuse to treat you. You could go to change your name and gender on your driver license and the clerk can refuse to do it.

Those who are backing the side of the bakery feel they have God on their side and more to the point 4 justices of the Supreme Court will probably think that was and four justices are on our side so it will all boil down to justice Kennedy.

There have been a number briefs filed on both sides,

But the small number that embrace discrimination are really big on it. And they’re organized and have deep pockets. (Also, God.) The Justice Department has filed an amicus brief in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop and the White House has asked to argue on Phillips’ behalf, in addition to his attorneys’ arguments.

More than 40 briefs have also been filed supporting Mullens and Craig, including ones by Ben & Jerry’s, Tammy Baldwin, and one signed by culinary stars like Anthony Bourdain And Ace Of Cakes’ Duff Goldman. “When a chef offers something to the public,” it read, “he must offer it to all.”

We will probably not find out how they feel until June, we will have some clues on what the justices are think but we will not know for sure until they issue their ruling.

Jennifer Finney Boylan wrote this opinion on the New York Times this morning,

The Masterpiece Cakeshop Case Is Not About Religious Freedom

I opened the door of a business called True’s.

It was a pharmacy run by a conservative Republican, a man who eventually served as the speaker of the House in the Maine State Legislature. It occurred to me, as I walked in,, that the store might well refuse to fill my prescription, given my condition. And I wondered whether the pharmacy’s actions would be legal if, indeed, the pharmacist argued that helping a person like me went against his beliefs.

After all, there’s a long history of people using religious liberty as reason to justify their refusal to provide a public service offered by their business. In 1968, the owner of a barbecue restaurant — Piggie Park, in South Carolina — held that his religious beliefs gave him the right to withhold service from African-Americans. The owner, Maurice Bessinger, argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion, because “his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.”

More recently, a pediatrician rejected Krista and Jamie Contreras’s child as a patient in Roseville, Mich., in 2014. The doctor, saying she had given the matter “much prayer,” decided that she couldn’t provide health care to their baby because they are lesbians.
[…]
There are two important things to know about the religious freedom/wedding cake case. One is that it’s not about religious freedom — it’s about religious exemption. The other is that it’s about a whole lot more than wedding cakes.
[…]
But Masterpiece has nothing to do with religious freedom. It’s about enshrining a freedom to discriminate. Historically, religious exemptions from the law have occasionally been granted to protect the person who holds the belief. But this case is different, in that it gives an individual the right to harm someone else. And that’s what the Masterpiece case is about: It would give individuals the right to discriminate.

Exactly!

It is giving special rights for people to hide behind their religion to discriminate. And where does it stop?
Could they claim “religious freedom” to discriminate against Muslims?
Could they claim “religious freedom” to discriminate against Jews?
Could they claim “religious freedom” to discriminate against blacks?
Could they claim “religious freedom” to ignore any law? All they have to say “it is against my religious beliefs?”