Fox News’ Outnumbered Tackles SCOTUS Cake Shop Ruling: What If Nazis Went to a Jewish Bakery?
The Supreme Court’s ruling in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case provoked a very lively discussion between panelists on Outnumbered on Monday, with some vivid references punctuating a very detailed conversation. The court ruled 7-2 in favor of the shop owner, in what is being described as a narrow ruling (if not margin).
Host Harris Faulker, calling this an “explosive” issue, at one point read aloud tweets lamenting the decision from Lambda Legal, an organization “litigating and advocating for #LGBTQ people”, and asked co-host and Fox Business host Kennedy about it.
Kennedy indicated that everyone was hoping for a more broad decision that was not so narrowly defined in implication. Kennedy mentioned that libertarians were paying close attention to the case as well.
Libertarians have very much been curious about this case and supportive of the rights of individuals and businesses to make their own decisions without the government imposing its will and forcing certain people to serve others. And you know, it doesn’t come down, necessarily, as a violation of the civil rights act. But really, you know, when you take it from an area of expression. And the counterargument was, what if you had a Jewish baker and a Nazi couple that wanted the Jewish baker to bake a cake for them? And the Jewish baker didn’t want to do that? Would this law also protect the Jewish baker?
That question remains, because as Faulkner pointed out, the decision applied specifically to a particular kind of cake (wedding) and not broadly to refusing service to an individual based on who they are or what they represent. Earlier in the segment Townhall’s Katie Pavlich also made the distinction.
Guest David Webb, a Fox contributor and radio host, responded that part of what was being left out of public discussion about the decision was the seemingly activist litigation-seeking on the part of groups like Lamda Legal, and used an explosive term to describe it:
By the way, the ones who filed the lawsuits? You don’t see Christians filing a lawsuit saying ‘you came and asked me to pick a wedding cake for your gay wedding.’ You see the civil rights commission, the different groups getting involved in filing lawsuits. It’s a form of, frankly, legal terrorism in some ways, to continue to push an agenda rather than a solution.
He described the idea of basically shopping for rejection in order to have grounds for court. “Go to another baker,” said Webb, “unless you have an agenda to set up a case.
Early in the segment, Pavlich referenced the discriminatory behavior on the part of that commission, which included comparing the cake shop’s actions to slavery and the Holocaust, and said that this was a big part of the decision in this particular case.
On Twitter, Constitutional attorney and senior editor at the Daily Wire Emily Zanotti on that point suggested that, rather than seeing new legal challenges, as Lamda and others suggested, or government intervention to require participation, as others suggested, there might be a bit less all around going forward.
Masterpiece Cakeshop decision leaves open the possibility that anti-discrimination law, neutrally applied, could require bakers and others to provide services for weddings or other events to which they have religious objections. https://t.co/yNkQjhKPeI
— Jonathan H. Adler (@jadler1969) June 4, 2018
Honestly, I don't think so. Civil Rights commissions are always going to have to tangle with the fact that Free Exercise of religion is a determined civil right. I'd guess fewer and fewer commissions will investigate situations of this nature going forward. https://t.co/FFspB5bzag
— Emily Zanotti (@emzanotti) June 4, 2018
[Featured image via screengrab]
—
Follow Caleb Howe (@CalebHowe) on Twitter
Have a tip we should know? tips@mediaite.com
