True. It's the liberals love of force that creates these situations.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.25ef0ec80fb9
But in reality, this case is testing the limits of the courts’ ability to resolve social disputes. No matter which party prevails, there is no winning scenario.
Left to the political process — or even better, to informal mechanisms of society — the conflict almost certainly could be resolved without forcing a choice between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom. Surely no one believes same-sex couples actually want the services of a baker they consider a bigot. The object of the case is not to secure Masterpiece Cakeshop’s services. It is to dragoon its owner, Jack C. Phillips, into compliance with their views.
The problem is that Phillips can’t be forced to agree with those views. He can only be made to deliver a cake, but that outcome would almost surely set the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights movement back by stoking resentment from its opponents. That is exactly what happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when court rulings sparked a wave of state constitutional amendments defining marriage heterosexually.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...0a9770d9a3e_story.html?utm_term=.25ef0ec80fb9
But in reality, this case is testing the limits of the courts’ ability to resolve social disputes. No matter which party prevails, there is no winning scenario.
Left to the political process — or even better, to informal mechanisms of society — the conflict almost certainly could be resolved without forcing a choice between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom. Surely no one believes same-sex couples actually want the services of a baker they consider a bigot. The object of the case is not to secure Masterpiece Cakeshop’s services. It is to dragoon its owner, Jack C. Phillips, into compliance with their views.
The problem is that Phillips can’t be forced to agree with those views. He can only be made to deliver a cake, but that outcome would almost surely set the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender rights movement back by stoking resentment from its opponents. That is exactly what happened in the late 1990s and early 2000s, when court rulings sparked a wave of state constitutional amendments defining marriage heterosexually.
