Depth of Thought – The Cake Case

For years many have been watching and arguing about the case of the Colorado baker who would not bake a wedding cake for a gay couple.  The case has been wending its way through the courts and outside of that process the arguments have, for the most part consisted simply of a re-articulation of one or more of the following phrases: “gays are protected/gays have rights”; “religion is protected/its expression is a right”; “gays are good/bad”; “religion is good/bad.” The line between two sides was well marked and as a result there was no hope of real communication or understanding, let alone any resolution.

Enter the Supreme Court of the United States and its final decision in the case issued this morning.  While the decision may not resolve the entire debate, and I am sure that folks will now begin a debate about the opinion itself, what that opinion also does is give us a good example of depth of thought and understanding.

Here is a link to the full opinion:  https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.   I encourage everyone to read it.

Actually, the full opinion/decision consists of several opinions.  Justice Kennedy wrote and delivered the opinion and judgement of the court with which Chief Justice Roberts along with Justices Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch joined.  Justice Kagen also wrote a concurring opinion (an opinion which agrees with the ultimate conclusion of the majority, but for different or additional reasons) with which Justice Breyer agreed.   Justice Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion with which Justice Alito agreed.  Justice Thomas filed an opinion that concurred in part and concurred with the judgement; Justice Gorsuch joined that opinion.  Justice Ginsburg filed a dissenting opinion (one which disagrees with the holding/ultimate judgment of the court) and Justice Sotomayor joined in that dissent.

This may seem like a lot of opinions about one case and one might wonder why, instead of 59 pages the Court can’t simply state that the bakeshop won 7-2.  

We need these 59 pages for many reasons.  Following is the one that is the point of this blog.

These opinions, while displaying a depth of thought about and understanding of the issues involved in the case, also underscore the complexity of those issues.  Each opinion explains the basis of the author’s position and why, in that author’s opinion that position is superior to other differing yet also reasonable positions.  They reveal each author’s attempt to understand the complexities of the issues involved as well as to understand the reasoning behind each position on those issues.  These opinions are, in effect, a written dialog between the members of the court in which they present their understanding and support for their positions while listening to and respectfully responding to differing understandings.

This decision puts to rest the particular case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, but, this and other debates over this and other issues will undoubtedly continue.  What we all can learn from this opinion is that issues are far more complex than day to day rhetoric and sound bites allow.  In this opinion we have an example of the depth of understanding that we all should make an effort to achieve on all issues. 

It is only with respect for and understanding of opposing views such as we see displayed in this decision that we can ever have a true dialog which, if not able to completely resolve an issue at least allows us to continue a reasonable, respectful, and rational dialog rather that simply engaging in hate-filled debate.  Taking sides and throwing about rhetorical solutions solves nothing.  Depth of understanding and an open dialog which includes both explanation of the support for one’s assertions along with an open-mindedness to understanding of opposing reasoning is the only way that a free society can truly move forward and ultimately resolve the many issues with which it is faced.

So, read the opinion.   Whether or not you agree with the Court’s decision in this particular case, read this opinion as an example of how one can support one’s position with more than simple buzz words and phrases.  Read the opinion as an example of the sort of explanation and support that gives strength to the assertion of any particular conclusion. 

We are not all Supreme Court Justices, but we can all use this opinion as a model for our own discussions with others on issues and as a model for the type of understanding that we should strive for before asserting a particular position on an issue. When faced with someone with whom you disagree, try to emulate the sort of respect, discussion, and understanding that is apparent in the opinion.  Obviously, it requires work to reach this level of understanding about any issue, but that work is far more productive and positive than simply shouting down and not even listening to those who disagree.  Let depth of thought be our goal for it will lead to understanding and real dialog.