Isn't it wonderful to be able to express your innermost thoughts and feelings with the beautiful English language? I always consider it a blessing to do so.

This past week the supreme court began deliberation upon Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Naturally, its been a hot topic among my peers. Yet, in echoing the times of Obergefell v. Hodges, poor reasoning abounds among the common public. Few make a coherent argument away from the sway of emotional rhetoric. Its unfortunate, but heartstring arguments are more common than not. Fortunately, good legal reasoning can be found.

So what are some of the finer points of this prickly case? States have anti-discrimination laws. Such laws have stood as a bulwark against racism and sexism. Colorado claims that the baker's refusal to bake a cake for the homosexual wedding is a violation of those laws. Is it? It may be, nevertheless, it's important to be specific about what is actually being refused. The gay men are not being refused. The baker has said he will sell them any baked good they choose, but he will not bake a cake supporting a homosexual wedding. So, it's not discrimination against homosexuals in the strict sense, but rather a refusal to support an event and idea that is unpalatable to the baker. Many logically weak arguments try to gain support by obscuring this fact and making an emotional appeal. That won't do.

A couple other important points need to be noted. The baker is arguing his case, I say he but really it's his legal team, on the grounds of protected free speech, not on the free exercise clause. If their best claim is rested in free speech and not in the free exercise clause, maybe religious freedom has already lost. What is riding on this case? Many would say everything and yet be unable to name any specific consequence. That's a sure sign of dogmatism.  The question must be asked, if Colorado wins, can anyone refuse to do something that they find morally reprehensible? Can anyone openly oppose homosexual marriage in word, action, or thought? These are questions a majority opinion in their favor would need to address. What if the Masterpiece Cakeshop wins? Will more discrimination occur? Will people use religious grounds to justify their unlawful actions?

I hope that the supreme court can have weighty deliberations, the type that show there was no predestination but rather a desire to weigh the presented evidence thoroughly. Justice Scalia scathingly described parts of the majority opinion in Obergefell as "the aphorisms of the fortune cookie." Hopefully there won't be a repeat. I hope the baker wins.