It all began in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins walked into a boutique bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, to order their wedding cake. Jack Philips, the bakery chef and owner, told the couple they could buy muffins that were already made for daily sale, or he could make them a birthday cake or other celebration cake, but a wedding cake for their special day? Not a chance! His Christian religious beliefs did not allow him to provide that service for homosexual customers.
The state's Civil Rights Commission fined the baker, who does not make cakes for Halloween parties or divorce celebrations, charging him with violating the couple's civil rights. The case reached the Supreme Court and this Monday, by a 7-2 vote, the court ruled that Colorado authorities violated the baker’s right to free expression guaranteed by the Constitution.
The case has divided the country. There are those who believe it is the rights of gays and lesbians that are being denied, while others think that everyone is free to choose and practice religion in the best way one sees fit. The general consensus is that this is the most important ruling from the highest court in the land regarding homosexuals since the decision three years ago on June 26, 2015 when the Supreme Court voted in favor of same sex marriage.
At the center of the current debate is the discussion of whether a cake is a service or a work of art that requires inspiration, involving emotion and feelings and if, in reality, it is a platform to express oneself. The couple left the bakery — which, by the way, is named Masterpiece — without having discussed either the decoration or the message they wanted in frosting. For some, they were simply denied service for being a same-sex couple.
The problem for others is that it is not just a cake. Everyone has the right to celebrate their love without discrimination. However, there are other services, like those for a wedding, being denied to same-sex couples in the name of religion: In Washington state, there is the case of the florist refusing to make floral arrangements; in New Mexico, a photographer declined services for the same reason. In Indiana, a pizzeria announced it would not serve homosexual couples.
For some experts, it was not that the justices — with the exception of the two most liberal judges, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Puerto Rican Sonia Sotomayor who voted against the court’s decision — gave permission to discriminate against homosexuals on the basis of religion, but that they made it clear if a merchant is Christian or Jewish or Muslim or Hindu, the merchant run the business guided by his or her beliefs.
Nevertheless, activist groups and gay community rights supporters insist that the Supreme Court decision about the baker is against homosexuals and leaves the door open for them to be considered second-class citizens in many aspects of daily life.
After all, in 28 of 50 states it is legal to deny them the ability to rent or purchase a home, and in places like Oklahoma, gay or lesbian couples are, in many cases, denied the choice of adopting a child. This, despite the fact that they actively participate in the civic life of the country, work, and pay taxes like everyone else.
It is estimated that four out of 10 Americans agree that services for a homosexual wedding can be refused on the basis of the merchant's religious beliefs. Of them, 67 percent are Republicans and 65 percent are white evangelicals. Meanwhile, according to another recent poll, 53 percent of the population is against refusing service.
President Trump has not offered an opinion on the subject, but Attorney General Jeff Sessions applauded the Supreme Court decision and said it showed tolerance and respect toward religious beliefs. Still, a group of 500 Christian leaders issued a statement making it clear that religious freedom must never be used as justification to discriminate. The case surrounding the cake, and everything else involved, has the country divided.
Todo comenzó en 2012 cuando Charlie Craig y David Mullins entraron a una panaderÃa de lujo en Lakewood, Colorado, para ordenar su pastel de bodas. Jack Phillips, el chef panadero y propietario del lugar les dijo que podÃan comprar panecillos de los que ya estaban hechos y se venden diario, o podÃa hacerles un pastel de cumpleaños u otra celebración, pero confeccionarles un pastel especial para el dÃa de su matrimonio, ¡eso no! Sus creencias religiosas cristianas no le permitÃan dar ese servicio a clientes homosexuales.
La comisión estatal de Derechos Civiles multó al panadero, quien tampoco prepara pasteles para fiestas de Halloween o para celebrar un divorcio y lo acusó de violar los derechos civiles de la pareja. El caso llegó hasta la Suprema Corte de Justicia, que este lunes, por votación de 7-2, decidió que las autoridades de Colorado violaron el derecho de libre expresión que tiene el panadero y que está garantizado por la Constitución.
En el centro del actual debate está la discusión de si un pastel es un servicio o una obra de arte que requiere inspiración e involucra emoción y sentimientos. Y si en realidad es una plataforma para expresarse. La pareja salió de la panaderÃa, que por cierto se llama Masterpiece u Obra Maestra, sin haber discutido ni la decoración ni el mensaje que querÃan sobre el betún. Para algunos simplemente se les negó el servicio por ser una pareja del mismo sexo.
Para algunos expertos no fue que los magistrados —con excepción de las dos juezas más liberales, Ruth Bader Ginsburg y la puertorriqueña Sonia Sotomayor que votaron en contra— hayan dado permiso para discriminar en contra de los homosexuales con base en la religión, sino que dejó claro que si el negociante es cristiano o judÃo o musulmán o hindú, puede manejar su establecimiento guiado por sus creencias.
Sin embargo, grupos activistas y defensores de la comunidad gay y de sus derechos, insisten en que la decisión de la Corte sobre el panadero es en contra de los homosexuales y deja abierta la puerta para que se les siga considerando ciudadanos de segunda clase en muchos aspectos de la vida diaria.
El presidente Donald Trump no ha expresado su opinión sobre el tema. Sin embargo, su procurador de Justicia, Jeff Sessions, aplaudió la decisión de la Suprema Corte y dijo que mostró tolerancia y respeto hacia las creencias religiosas. Sin embargo, un grupo de 500 lÃderes cristianos emitió un comunicado dejando claro que la libertad religiosa jamás debe ser usada como justificación para discriminar. El caso es que el pastel y todo lo que involucró, tienen dividido al paÃs.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link
.
Venezuela is likely to become another wasted crisis, resembling events that followed when the U.S. forced regime changes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Venezuela is likely to become another wasted crisis, resembling events that followed when the U.S. forced regime changes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are faced with a "scenario" in which Washington's exclusive and absolute dominance over the entire hemisphere, from Greenland and Canada in the north to the southern reaches of Argentina and Chile.