Is there anyone who can say what is always right and always wrong and present an unchanging standard by which all behavior can be judged?
I raise the question in light of last week’s non-ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court, which declined for a second time to hear an appeal from a flower shop owner in Washington State. Barronelle Stutzman, the owner, refused to provide flowers for a same-sex couple because her religious beliefs instruct her that marriage was created by God for opposite sexes.
The U.S. Supreme Court had sent her case back to the state supreme court for further consideration. That court upheld its original ruling, forcing Stutzman to provide the flowers, or face penalties under the state’s anti-discrimination laws. Three conservative members of the U.S. Supreme Court wanted to hear the case. It takes four.
What confuses many people is that the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused on the same religious grounds as Stutzman to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Why is religious belief a sufficient reason to uphold the Colorado baker’s right not to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding and a violation of another state’s law in the flower shop case? News reports say Stutzman has provided flowers in the past to gay individuals, but not for their weddings.
How far are the courts willing to go with this? Should an Orthodox Jewish or Muslim caterer be forced to violate their religious beliefs when those faiths view marriage as an opposite-sex ritual? What if the same-sex couple also wants pork served at the reception? Jews and Muslims regard pork as unclean food. Would a court order demand they serve the item?