In a 7-2 ruling, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the now-famous Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same sex wedding on religious grounds. The case, which was widely viewed as the inexorable consequence of the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling did not provide much in the way of setting sweeping Constitutional precedent. CNN SCOTUS analyst Steve Vladeck called the decision “remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually all of the major constitutional questions.”
The Daily Mississippian: Reagan Meredith claims “that private businesses and entities who discriminate in these ways with no legitimate purpose…are run by truly amoral and evil people," and continues, “however, I believe that they should have a freedom to do so.”
• She believes the free market should sift out hateful opinions from the competitive stream: “The couple writes to the editor at the local newspaper or the producer at the local news channel. The story would have been picked up and the owner of the cake shop would have lost business…”
The Daily Iowan: Constance Judd begins, “I do not condone any form of discrimination against members of the LGBTQ community," then adds qualification: "not all should be compelled to agree with their lifestyles and forced to accommodate them.”
• “Phillips cannot simply pick and choose whom he wants to serve because that is a form of discrimination in itself," she asserts, concluding with a note on the complexity of the case: "this case is many shades of gray."
Berkeley Political Review: Madhumitha Krishnan believes Jack Phillips' “‘freedom of religion’ argument, for the most part, holds merit.”
• At the same time, “the baker does not have the ability to use ‘freedom of religion’ to act with complete disregard.”
• Krishnan believes the case represents a “balancing act" in which "libertarians still worry about unsubstantiated government overreach, whereas to liberals such government overreach is needed to further the values of democracy."
The Bottom Line:
Most opinions voiced by students about the now emblematic “wedding cake at a gay wedding scenario” characterize the baker’s decision as abhorrent, yet constitutionally-sanctioned expression. The above opinions strain to communicate sufficient disgust with those who discriminate against gay people, yet stretch further to defend the right to harbor such “disgusting” world views.