John Gibson
In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a newly engaged same-sex couple (David Mullins and Charlie Craig; along with their mothers) wished to order a wedding cake from a local baker, Jack Phillips. After a brief introduction, yet before the order specifications were discussed, Mr. Phillips (a devout Christian) informed the gentleman that he would not be willing to fulfill the couple's order, because his religion prohibits same-sex marriage. In light of the recent legal recognition of the couples relationship; this couple must face the brisk reality - laws may change, but to their neighbors they still aren't equal. Mr. Phillips felt that by contributing to the celebration he would be committing …show more content…
In reference to Mr. Phillips argument, I find it to be problematic and logically unsound as he is pleading for religious tolerance - all the while practicing intolerance towards others. He is using the freedom of religion to perpetuate discrimination rather than prevent it as the right was intended. I see this not only counter-productive to the pursuit of a just future, but also posing a dangerous threat to the lives and liberty of Americans nationwide. It is much more dangerous to the state of the nation to condone blatant discrimination, than to protect the freedom to express intolerance. Laws have the ability to apply moral reason through example, however in doing so the ambiguity of the analogical reasoning often leave no clear moral decision to be made. Understanding the rule of law to be a perpetually written book where each Supreme Court decision describes a new chapter. (Supreme Court of the United States p.3) Therefore the law holds an intrinsic value as a more dynamic and progressive alternative to the otherwise traditionalist method of analogical reasoning. We must look towards the future in what kind of nation our children will be raised
In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a newly engaged same-sex couple (David Mullins and Charlie Craig; along with their mothers) wished to order a wedding cake from a local baker, Jack Phillips. After a brief introduction, yet before the order specifications were discussed, Mr. Phillips (a devout Christian) informed the gentleman that he would not be willing to fulfill the couple's order, because his religion prohibits same-sex marriage. In light of the recent legal recognition of the couples relationship; this couple must face the brisk reality - laws may change, but to their neighbors they still aren't equal. Mr. Phillips felt that by contributing to the celebration he would be committing …show more content…
In reference to Mr. Phillips argument, I find it to be problematic and logically unsound as he is pleading for religious tolerance - all the while practicing intolerance towards others. He is using the freedom of religion to perpetuate discrimination rather than prevent it as the right was intended. I see this not only counter-productive to the pursuit of a just future, but also posing a dangerous threat to the lives and liberty of Americans nationwide. It is much more dangerous to the state of the nation to condone blatant discrimination, than to protect the freedom to express intolerance. Laws have the ability to apply moral reason through example, however in doing so the ambiguity of the analogical reasoning often leave no clear moral decision to be made. Understanding the rule of law to be a perpetually written book where each Supreme Court decision describes a new chapter. (Supreme Court of the United States p.3) Therefore the law holds an intrinsic value as a more dynamic and progressive alternative to the otherwise traditionalist method of analogical reasoning. We must look towards the future in what kind of nation our children will be raised