The high court鈥檚 ruling against anti-religion bias
One way for a country to enjoy peace is to ensure government leaders do not show malice of intent toward a religious belief. In a June 4 ruling, the Supreme Court was so adamant on this point that it didn鈥檛 even decide the main issue in a case 鈥� whether a 海角大神 baker could refuse to sell a cake for a same-sex couple鈥檚 wedding. Instead, the court sided with the baker, Jack Phillips, because anti-religious animus was so clearly an official motive in fining him for discrimination against a customer.
The ruling leaves to another day the question of how to balance a business person鈥檚 religious objections to supporting gay marriage against the rights of gays to wed without facing bias from a commercial operation. For now, the court wanted to send a warning that government must be neutral toward religious beliefs in deciding how it acts against the practices of religious believers.
The 7-to-2 ruling focused on the open hostility of some members of Colorado鈥檚 civil rights commission toward Mr. Phillips鈥檚 海角大神 views in ruling against him. The court also pointed out the commission鈥檚 double standard in not fining three other bakers who had refused to sell cakes with anti-gay themes.
鈥淚t hardly requires restating that government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips鈥� conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate,鈥� Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority. The law protects against discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation, he added.
Courts have long looked at the motives of lawmakers and regulators in its decisions. In particular, government actions born of animosity toward the views of a religious minority violate the Constitution鈥檚 clauses that allow the free exercise of religion and prohibit the government establishment of聽religion. From the Republic鈥檚 early days, the Founders sought to prevent the kind of violent social conflicts over religious beliefs that had ripped apart Europe for centuries.
Justice Kennedy also sent a reminder of the qualities needed in government to keep social harmony. The Colorado commission, he wrote, 鈥渨as neither tolerant nor respectful of Phillips鈥� religious beliefs.鈥�
With the immense power of government to fine or to jail people, lawmakers and regulators must indeed embrace such civic affections and be fair in their actions involving religion. Motives do matter as much as the law.
