Justice Kennedy Quotes West Virginia Case While Defending Religious Rights of Cake Baker

The 1943 Supreme Court decision set the precedent for the protection of religious expression in our Constitution and that West Virginian’s courage to challenge an overreaching state government was referenced in the defense of a wrongfully persecuted citizen simply because he wished to live and work according to his religious beliefs. The LGBT attack machine almost cost Jack his business and now they will owe a substantial amount to him and to his faith-based legal team. And today’s ruling means that ten of West Virginia’s cities that have passed similar city ordinances under the intentionally vague motivation of  protecting LGBT complainers against “discrimination,” will have to be abandoned or at least rewritten. They have basically been ruled unenforceable. Any city that tries will get eaten alive with a similar case that could cost their tax base hundreds of thousands of dollars.

Justice Kennedy writing for the majority in today’s 7-2 Supreme Court victory for Colorado cake baker Jack Phillips.  Supreme Court’s opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop.

Kennedy, “A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness. Just as “no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion,” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U. S. 624, 642 (1943), it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. See Matal v. Tam, 582 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2017) (opinion of ALITO, J.) (slip op., at 22–23). The Colorado court’s attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips’ religious beliefs. The court’s footnote does not, therefore, answer the baker’s concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection.”