The Supreme Court decision on whether a cake shop can refuse to make a cake for a same sex marriage was somewhat settled by the Supreme Court in a 7-2 decision. It was a very narrow decision, and came down more to Colorado being anti-religion and in violation of the 1st Amendment, but it really didn’t solve the overall question. But, of course, this means a total freakout. There was Excitable Kamala Harris
Question for Kamala: does this mean that a gay baker could be made to make a cake celebrating Hitler’s birthday? Or what if one of those marriage places in Las Vegas was asked to marry multiple people to each other? Love is love, right? Why does the government discriminate against people who want to marry people? What if someone wants to set up a cake shop that only caters to same sex couples? Isn’t that discrimination? Then, hot take in the New York Times by Jennifer Finney Boylan
After Masterpiece, It’s Time to Change the Constitution
The Supreme Court has ruled on the Masterpiece Cake case — and on the surface, it would appear to be a loss for L.G.B.T.Q. Americans. The justices ruled 7 to 2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the religious freedom of a baker, Jack Phillips, when it sanctioned him for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, in 2012.
“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,†Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.
In spite of this, the ruling is relatively narrow. “The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts,†Justice Kennedy wrote, “all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.â€
At the root, Ms. Boylan gets it right. But, Virtue Signaling
In other words, while Masterpiece is a loss for L.G.B.T.Q. people, the question of how to balance religious freedom with the rights of queer people remains unresolved, and will most likely continue to be explored and debated in the future, and by the Supreme Court not least.
And this, more than the case itself, is the greater loss for L.G.B.T.Q. people. We lose when our rights are considered debatable. Even if the Supreme Court had ruled unanimously against the baker, in fact, L.G.B.T.Q. Americans would still be considered second-class citizens in many aspects of civic life.
Going down the same road, the religious lose their rights when they are debatable. And, really, we’re talking about making a cake for a wedding. Nothing hugely massive of importance, except perhaps to the couple (why not group?!!!!) All they have to do is go to another cake maker. And, in the few cases this happens, the same sex couple is has usually been referred to another baker (or florist, or whatever). Having a custom cake baked is not a right. If I go over to Kroger or Food Lion or wherever and ask them to make a custom cake that says “Happy Birthday, Adolph Hitler”, they have every right to refuse service. Or if I request “Kroger Sucks” from Kroger.
Here it comes
The only thing that will truly enshrine equal protection under the law for all Americans, including L.G.B.T.Q. people, is an amendment to the Constitution.
Call it the Dignity Amendment. The text might read: “Equality of rights under the law shall not be abridged by the United States or by any state on account of sex, sexual orientation or gender identity.†It’s the brainchild of Sarah Kate Ellis, the president and chief executive of Glaad (where I served as co-chairwoman of the board of directors for four years).
The Dignity Amendment would guarantee that L.G.B.T.Q. Americans are treated like all other Americans. It would send the message that we are part of the fabric of this nation. It would guarantee that our rights as taxpayers and as participants in the civic life of the country cannot be abridged because of our private lives.
It would essentially create a privileged class, when the Constitution already demands that all people be treated equally. And, it would mean that people who are opposed to same sex marriage, the gender confused, etc, could be prosecuted for Wrongthink.
In the meantime, Masterpiece is a defeat — a qualified defeat, to be sure, and a defeat that may well be revisited. But a bigger defeat is having to have one’s rights as a citizen challenged, discussed and put forth for debate in the first place. This is not just a matter of dignity. It’s a matter of common sense. We turn to the Constitution for deliverance, and for justice.
Sigh. Justice. It’s a cake. Just a cake. Which can be obtained at plenty of other bakers. Cake.
But, this does actually show something. Liberals cannot be trusted when we are talking about gun control, because they will take any little issue and magnify it to the extreme.
Read: Hot Take: The Constitution Needs To Be Amended After Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Or Something »
New York may allow teachers to report troubled students to a judge to ensure they do not have access to guns.
Attorney General Jeff Sessions delivered a vigorous defense of the hard-line Trump administration policy that has resulted in immigrant children being separated from their parents after crossing the border illegally during a lengthy interview on Tuesday.
This morning, from the main stage at 
