The Cato Institute

Masterpiece Cakeshop: Tolerance Goes Both Ways

Cato is the only organization in the country that has gone to court to defend both one’s right to marry a person of the same sex and one’s right as a businessperson to join or not join as one chooses in assisting in celebrating a same-sex wedding…

This week the Supreme Court heard arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, a case about a baker who refused to design a cake for a gay wedding. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, had served gay customers for years, but he feels serving a same-sex wedding will violate his religious convictions.

Is there a difference between declining to serve a class of people versus a particular event? Does the level of customization of a product matter? Is artisanal baking even protected by the First Amendment? Shouldn’t all this boil down to the freedom of association — including the freedom not to associate?

But this case is bigger than Jack Phillips…

In 2015, the Supreme Court extended constitutional protections to same-sex marriage and created one of those cultural moments that feels like part of a Hollywood production. People wept tears of joy on the steps of the Court.

Opposition to legal recognition of same-sex marriage is a minority view even among Republicans. 

That said, folks with religious convictions don’t change their minds over a Supreme Court case, and they certainly don’t change their minds because the government forces them to serve same-sex weddings. In fact, they’re likely to retrench in their beliefs.

We live in a pluralistic society, and not everyone’s convictions fit together easily. Tolerance needs to be mutual, not one-sided.

Please allow some time for adjustment, and allow those who are conflicted on these issues some space and understanding.

Learn more…

Lov(ing) is Love

Fifty years ago today the Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage…

Mildred Jeter, a black woman (though she also had Native American heritage and may have preferred to think of herself as Indian), married Richard Loving, a white man, in the District of Columbia in 1958. When they returned to their home in Caroline County, Virginia, they were arrested under Virginia’s anti-miscegenation statute, which dated to colonial times and had been reaffirmed in the Racial Integrity Act of 1924. The Lovings were indicted and pled guilty. They were sentenced to a year in jail; the state’s law didn’t just ban interracial marriage, it made such marriage a criminal offense. However, the trial judge suspended the sentence on the condition that they leave Virginia and not return together for 25 years. In his opinion, the judge stated:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay, and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

Five years later they filed suit to have their conviction overturned. The case eventually reached the Supreme Court, which struck down Virginia’s law unanimously.

The Loving case was a milestone in the progress toward a country that truly guarantees every citizen life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and equal protection of the laws. And, of course, it played a key role in the legal recognition of same-sex marriage four decades later.

From a libertarian perspective, it would be best to get the government out of marriage entirely—let marriage be a private contract and a religious ceremony, but not a government institution. But, whenever government imposes obligations or dispenses benefits, it may not “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” That provision is explicit in the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, applicable to the states, and implicit in the Fifth Amendment, applicable to the federal government.

Both Loving and Obergefell are landmark decisions that extended liberty and justice—and the freedom to marry—to all. But, had it not been for Loving, we may not ever have had Obergefell. Today we celebrate the late Richard and Mildred Loving — and their lawyers — and the victory that they won for all Americans.

Learn more…

We Will Save You The Google Search…

Google’s release of their annual Year in Search video is making waves across the Internet today. The video highlights some of the most searched questions of what has amounted to a very busy year. 

Thinking of taking a look back at 2015 yourself?  We’ll save you the search with these Cato Institute pieces on the most talked-about topics of the year….

The Refugee Crisis: 

• Who Are the Syrian Refugees?, by Alex Nowrasteh 
  
• Paris Changed Nothing. We Still Have Every Reason to Welcome Syrian Refugees, by A. Trevor Thrall 
  
• Syrian Refugees Don’t Pose a Serious Security Threat, by Alex Nowrasteh 
  
• Let Syrian Refugees in—All of Them, by A. Trevor Thrall 
• Syrian Refugees Could Help America. We Should Welcome Them, by Alex Nowrasteh 
  
• Finding Refuge in the Truth about Syrian Refugees, by Alex Nowrasteh 
  

Removal of the Confederate Flag: 

• South Carolina Should Move the Confederate Flag, by David Boaz 
  
• VIDEO: Ilya Shapiro discusses what the confederate flag means on Univision’s Noticias Hoy a la Seis 
• 
  
• VIDEO: Why Libertarians Should Not Support the Confederacy
• Rand Paul, the Confederacy, and Liberty, by Jason Kuznicki 
  
• Why “Libertarian” Defenses of the Confederacy and “States’ Rights” are Incoherent, by Jonathan Blanks 
  

#BlackLivesMatter: 

• No, Black Lives Matter Isn’t about Hurting Cops, by Emily Ekins 
  
• Special Event: The Ongoing Events in Ferguson, Missouri with Tim Lynch
  
• How Equal Rights for Black Americans Still Aren’t Equal Enough, by Jonathan Blanks
  
• Race Matters in Ferguson—and in Modern America, by Jonathan Blanks
  
• Looking Back to Look Forward: Blacks, Liberty, and the State, by Jonathan Blanks 
  

Ending the Cuban Embargo: 

• Yes, of Course We Should Lift the Cuban Embargo, by Scott Lincicome
  
• Now Let’s End the Embargo on Cuba, by Ian Vásquez
  
• PODCAST: An End to the Counterproductive Cuban Embargo

#LoveisLove — Same Sex Marriage at the Supreme Court: 

• Supreme Court Amicus Brief: Obergefell v. Hodges, by William N. Eskridge Jr., Roger Pilon, Ilya Shapiro, & Trevor Burrus
  
• #CatoConnects: Gay Marriage Legalized Nationwide
  
• Gay Marriage Is Here - Now What?, by Ilya Shapiro
  

Caitlyn Jenner, Laverne Cox, and Trans Awareness: 

• Human, Transhuman, Transgender, by Jason Kuznicki 
  
• The Condition of Transgender Women: Libertarian Perspectives, by Mikayla Novak 

The Pope’s Visit to the United States: 

• Pictures for the Pope and Progressives, Steve H. Hanke 
  
• The Pope and Poverty, by Michael D. Tanner
  
• Capitalism and Morality: Walter Williams vs. Pope Francis, by Daniel J. Mitchell
  
• Pope Francis Graph of the Day, by Ian Vasquez
  
• Cato Policy Forum: Blessing or Scourge? Capitalism through the Eyes of Pope Francis

The Attacks in Paris: 

• Flemming Rose discusses the Paris shootings and free speech on BBC 4’s World News Today
  
• The Paris Attacks Shouldn’t Cause Us to Escalate the War against ISIS, by Brad Stapleton
  
• PODCAST: The Attacks in Paris and Chasing Ghosts

Whatever Happened to Religious Freedom?

Gay marriage was a win for liberty, but when cake bakers and others are fined for adhering to their beliefs about same-sex marriage, a new kind of discrimination is upon us.

In the Wall Street Journal, Cato’s Vice President for Legal Affairs Roger Pilon discusses recent situations that have forced private individuals and organizations into associations they found offensive.

Read the full article…

We Won! SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Same-Sex Marriage!

In a 5-4 decision, the Supreme Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex.

Join us for a LIVE discussion of what the ruling will mean for the Fourteenth Amendment, existing marriage laws, and individual liberty.

Tune into cato.org/live at 3 p.m. EST today and tweet your questions using #CatoConnects.

Help us spread the news on Twitter and Facebook!

Marriage and the Court, Yesterday and Today

As we await a Supreme Court decision on gay marriage, we take note that 48 years ago today the Court struck down Virginia’s ban on interracial marriage in the case, Loving v. Virginia.

Here’s to a true win for liberty….and to many, many more!

Learn more about Loving v. Virginia and how it relates to marriage cases currently being decided by the Supreme Court.…