Nytt

Colorado Civil Rights Commission ville tvinge Jack Phillips til å levere kake til et homo-bryllup, eller så måtte han slutte som baker. Foto: Aaron P Bernstein/Reuters/Scanpix

En kristen baker i Colorado, USA, har fått Høyesteretts medhold i at han har rett til å nekte å bake kake til et homofilt bryllup av overbevisningsgrunner.

Høyesteretts flertall var solide 7-2 i Jack Phillips favør.

On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Colorado baker Jack Phillips, who was sanctioned for refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding.

For mange amerikanere er friheten til å følge sin samvittighet viktig. De reiser bust når myndighetene forsøker å diktere dem hva de skal mene.

En menneskerettsgruppe i delstaten ville pålegge Jack Philips å levere kaken, eller så måtte han slutte å bake kake overhodet.

Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, was told by a Colorado Civil Rights Commission that he cannot refuse to bake cakes for events that violate his conscience, even though he had a long history of selling items in his cakeshop to anyone who walked through the door. Phillips, citing his Christian faith, said his conscience would not allow him to design cakes for events like divorce parties, lewd bachelor parties, or same-sex weddings.

Colorado ordered him to either make cakes for same-sex weddings or stop making cakes at all.

Men Høyesterett har en mer solomonisk holdning. Homofile har retttigheter, men de har også de med et annet syn f.eks på ekteskap.

The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that «The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.» Citing Obergefell v. Hodges, the justices wrote that the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case:

…showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.

Høyestrett refser Civil Rights Commission for ikke å ville tillegge Phillips religiøse overbevisning noen vekt eller gyldighet over hodet. Han hadde ikke rett til å blande sitt religiøse syn inn i sin forrettningsvirksomhet.

Høyesterett sier borgerrettskommisjonen viste en fiendtlig holdning til hans kristne syn. Noen sammenlignet det med forsvar for slaveri eller Holcaust. Ingen andre komitemedlemmer tok avstand fra slike synspunkt.

Høyesterett tror derfor ikke at kommisjonen har vært i stand til å gi Phillips en fair behandling.

The high court said the Commission’s treatment of Phillips violated the First Amendment mandate not to base laws or regulations on hostility to religion. «The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices,» the justices wrote.

Det er en banebrytende dom. Slik den homovennlige delen av samfunnet tolker loven, er det ikke rom for dissent. Du skal ikke bare tolerere, men aktivt samarbeide for de homofiles rettigheter på deres egne premisser.

Det sier Høyesterett nei til. Også de med et annet syn er berettiget til å beholde det, også på deres egen arbeidsplass.

Dette er en dom i Trumps ånd. Dette er Trumps Amerika som snakker. Individuell frihet og frihet til å tro står sterkt. At en myndighet skulle pålegge noen noe som strider mot ens samvittighet er uamerikansk.

Men Obama så det annerledes. Han sto for en aktivistlinje også på jusens område. Dette er en politisering av rettsvesenet som mange amerikanere reagerer på.

 

BREAKING: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker in Gay Wedding Cake Case