Imagine if a prison cook swapped out beef for pork in the lunchtime chili without telling the inmates. His reason: there is no substantive difference between pork and beef. Religious restrictions on pork are arbitrary and outdated, no more worthy of consideration than taste preferences. If pork is cheaper, he’ll serve it. Jewish and Muslim inmates who wise up to the substitution can skip a meal.
Why should the cook respect a religious conviction he deems an inconvenient fiction? Why should religious beliefs merit any consideration, particularly if they are held by a minority? Thatap the central question at the heart of theMasterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commissioncase. Although the case was decided this week, the debate over this question continues.
A two thirds majority of Americans support gay marriage according to polls. They see no substantive difference between homosexual and heterosexual nuptials. But for those who follow the words of the Bible or the Koran, there is a distinction. When local baker Jack Phillips refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding because, in his words, it “celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible, would have been a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony,” his actions were consistent with St. Paul’s epistles which prohibit Christians from engaging in certain sexual practices or encouraging others to do the same. The baker was not acting out of random prejudice against homosexuals; he has sold custom-made birthday cakes, cookies, and other baked goods to gay patrons since opening his store. There is a clear connection between the dictates of his 2,000 year old religion and his exercise of it.
People are free to dismiss Biblical teachings on sexuality as ridiculous and outdated. Many secular Americans and indeed some Christians do. People are free to disagree with how Phillips exercises his convictions. There are religious bakers who make wedding cakes for same sex weddings. However, when a government body, in this case the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, acts with hostility toward religious views, it violates the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution. “The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices,” Justice Kennedy wrote in this week’s Supreme Court . The decision, however, does not determine whether the Constitutionally-protected right to the free exercise of religion outweighs other state interests, only that religious objections must be considered without prejudice.
Even this minor victory for religious liberty bothers those who consider religion an inconvenient fiction. They would prefer the Free Exercise Clause protect at most worship activities and private prayers. Why shouldn’t the majority in a society determine acceptable moral conduct and impose it on a minority who insists on clinging to religion?
It happens elsewhere. Practitioners of minority religions in Muslim, atheist communist regimes, Hindu nationalist, and even secular countries – try wearing a hijab in a French school – enjoy fewer rights than those in the majority and in many cases outright persecution.
America has had its share of sectarian strife. As a young man, James Madison encountered Baptist preachers jailed for publishing their religious views. The experience inspired a lifelong dedication to religious liberty that culminated in the writing of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Madison and the other Founders were less than a century out from Europe’s bloody religious wars. They knew that majorities may give lip service to live and let live but in action prefer conform or be conformed.
Safeguarding religious exercise is thus necessary, particularly for those in the minority. Because societal norms change those who are confident in their majority status may find themselves in the minority within their lifetime. So even if you feel no empathy for a Christian baker, a Jewish inmate, or a Muslim student, you should be grateful for this week’s ruling and hope that subsequent decisions protect the free exercise of religion.
Krista Kafer is a weekly Denver Post columnist. Follow her on Twitter: @kristakafer
To send a letter to the editor about this article, submit online or check out our guidelines for how to submit by email or mail.
