Gay marriage: Siding with religious baker is problematic Supreme Court should not open the door to all manner of religious objection: Our view

The Editorial Board | USA TODAY

Ever since the Supreme Court ruled in 2015 that same-sex couples have a right to marry, states have taken off in different directions.

More than 20 states expanded on the ruling to enact broad civil rights legislation, making it illegal to discriminate based on sexual orientation. At the same time, at least 30 others have religious freedom laws or court rulings that give businesses some level of discretion to deny services to customers based on religious views.

On Monday, the court correctly decided it had let the matter fester long enough. It took a case from Colorado, one of the states with broad civil rights laws, in which a baker cited his religious beliefs in refusing to produce a wedding cake for a gay couple.

This court has a long history of protecting religious expression, but ruling in favor of the baker could be deeply problematic.

If a baker can refuse service to a same-sex couple, someone else would surely come forward to claim a religious right to deny service in the case of interracial or interfaith marriages. The courts would naturally be inclined to object to that. In so doing, they'd essentially be saying that discrimination based on sexual orientation is acceptable while other forms are not.

Do courts really want to get into the business of deciding which forms of discrimination have a legitimate grounding in religious values and which do not?

And do they want to open the door to all manner of religious objection? While the religious freedom cause has been taken up by conservative Christians to register their disapproval of same-sex marriages, others would surely follow. A Muslim business owner, for instance, might refuse to do business with a woman who refuses to wear a burqa or a head scarf.

If the Supreme Court does insist on finding a religious right to deny service, it should do so in the narrowest way possible. One idea might be to find that anyone claiming a religious objection is obligated to find an alternative vendor to provide the requested services.

That would not address the Pandora ’s box of issues that could arise from the case. But it might at least keep an objector’s religious views from infringing on the rights of others.

In the final analysis, the right of same-sex couples to marry is the law of the land. As Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in his 2015 majority opinion, “The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express identity.”

Why would the court now want to countenance people who object to that?

USA TODAY's editorial opinions are decided by its Editorial Board, separate from the news staff. Most editorials are coupled with an opposing view — a unique USA TODAY feature.

To read more editorials, go to the Opinion front page or sign up for the daily Opinion email newsletter. To respond to this editorial, submit a comment to letters@usatoday.com