Religious discrimination or gender discrimination?
We have all read about the baker or the photographer who refuses to provide services to the homosexual couple. In the clash of sincere beliefs about “good and evil”, someone will get hurt. One of those cases will be decided in 2017-18 by the US Supreme Court.

A Colorado baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because of his religious convictions that gay marriage is sinful and that he should not be forced to implicitly express his approval of the marriage by preparing an item. [the cake, and quite likely, the message written on the cake] celebrating marriage. The Colorado court ruled in favor of the gay couple. The baker’s cake is now served on appeal to the Supreme Court.

Religious discrimination may depend on how it is cut.
Society’s view of the right of homosexuals to marry same-sex has changed rapidly over the decade. This pace of cultural change is staggering. California, for example, went from a constitutional amendment limiting marriage to people of the opposite sex to being forced by the State Supreme Court to allow such marriages. Subsequently, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Due Process Clause and the 14th Amendment to the federal Constitution restricted states from denying marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Oberfell v. Hodges576 USA ___ (2015).

Is a wedding cake an expression of belief that, if compelled, would be a violation of the baker’s religious freedom under the First Amendment? Judge William Brennan in Sherbert v. verner (1963) stated: “The door of the Free Exercise Clause is hermetically closed against any government regulation of religious beliefs. The government may not compel the affirmation of a repugnant belief, or penalize or discriminate against individuals or groups because they hold religious views abhorrent to the authorities, or use taxing power to inhibit the spread of a particular religious view..”

The Baker [Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado] he claims that he sees the use of his cakes as messages and that some messages violate his religious beliefs. He has written: “And that rule applies to much more than cakes that celebrate same-sex marriages. I will also not use my talents to celebrate Halloween, anti-American or anti-family themes, atheism, racism, or indecency.” the denver mail .

Photography and wedding cake cases are distinguished from the blatant homophobic bias by the “expressive” message that the writing and/or images project. Entrepreneurs who refuse to create these expressions do so because the expression is the antithesis of their religious belief. Likewise, their religious belief is the antithesis of those who are denied the goods or services that companies provide.

Religious discrimination or religious freedom?: Difficult questions for the court.
Rights collide in a democratic society. The right to freedom of expression collides with public safety when speech is certain to cause chaos and death to innocent people. The right to “bear arms” is limited by laws that require gun registration after a background check. The current dispute over the “wedding cake” will require the court to balance two conflicting social values: the freedom to marry and the freedom of religion.

The Supreme Court has once again put itself in the role of arbitrating a social battle that raises numerous questions:

• Is the icing on the cake a government-mandated form of expression contrary to the religious freedom of the baker?
• Is the icing on the cake the baker’s expression of approval of gay marriage, or simply a specification of the product he delivers for the buyer to express?
• Is the icing on the cake offensive to the baker insofar as it is an attack on his religious convictions?
• Is the icing on the cake readily available from other bakers who don’t have the same religious convictions as Phillips?
• Which religious beliefs deserve First Amendment protections, and which will be held unconstitutional?
• What religious practices does a free democratic society consider to be forms of illegal discrimination?

In addressing these questions, the United States Supreme Court will have to decide whether the icing on the cake is a form of expression that unduly restricts Phillips’ freedom of religion. Is Phillips correct that he is somehow forced to condone gay marriage by baking a cake for the wedding? Is the act of applying a message to a cake your adoption of the message as your own? Is his participation in cooking in a ceremony that he finds repugnant to his religious belief? Disgust and abhorrence seem to abound on both sides of the case. When the Court makes the call, there will be boos from one side or the other within the stadium of ideas.