SCOTUS

In the Detroit Free Press, John explains the Court’s decision in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. From the piece:

The case was not “narrowly decided” in the sense of being a close verdict: Indeed, it was a 7-2 decision. But it was “narrowly written,” in the sense of applying only to this particular commission’s treatment of this particular baker in this particular case. It does not decide, one way or another, whether bakers generally have a right to refuse to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples.

John was also asked to share his thoughts with the Christian Science Monitor. He responded:

The decision didn’t settle the hard questions, but it acknowledged that there are indeed hard questions here and that we won’t do a good job of addressing them if we’re too quick to label either side as “despicable.” In doing so, it invited us all to turn down the heat in the culture wars – a result I very much welcome.

Read his further thoughts in his full Freep op-ed here.

Read more

Sara Krulwich/NYT

At The New York Times, John explains how to draw a line between some of the cake cases in the news. From the article:

Therein lies the crucial difference between the cases: Silva’s objection was about what she sold; a design-based objection. Phillips’s objection was about to whom it was sold; a user-based objection. The gay couple never even had the opportunity to discuss designs with Phillips, because the baker made it immediately clear that he would not sell them any wedding cake at all.

Read the full article here.

Read more

In his Obergefell dissent, Chief Justice Roberts trots out a familiar slippery-slope argument:

[F]rom the standpoint of history and tradition, a leap from opposite-sex marriage to same-sex marriage is much greater than one from a two-person union to plural unions, which have deep roots in some cultures around the world. If the majority is willing to take the big leap, it is hard to see how it can say no to the shorter one.

Actually, it’s not that hard at all. For a detailed analysis of the constitutional problems with this argument, I recommend Stephen Macedo’s latest post at Slate. In terms of logic and public policy, however, we can answer Roberts with a short video, from my 2012 marriage series:

Read more