Worth Worrying About?

Same-Sex Marriage & Religious Freedom

The late-June release of the Supreme Court’s more controversial or culturally salient decisions has become a major media event—like the Oscars, or the election-day tallying of the midnight ballots from Dixville Notch. Refreshing, if archaic, rules prohibiting cameras and live broadcasting from the Court cause tens of thousands to glue themselves to celebrity law-reporters’ Twitter feeds and the SCOTUSBlog webcast.

That said, and the end-of-session drama notwithstanding, few Court-watchers or constitutional-law experts were actually surprised when, in United States v. Windsor, a narrow majority ruled that Section 3 of The Defense of Marriage Act, which comprehensively defined “marriage” and “spouse” in federal law to exclude same-sex partners, was unconstitutional. Although there were some puzzling and fuzzy “federalism” and “state sovereignty” aspects of Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion for the majority, the bottom line of the Court’s holding was fairly clear and widely expected: a narrow majority of justices agreed that the challenged section of DOMA unconstitutionally deprives some persons of the “equal liberty” protected by the Fifth Amendment. In Hollingsworth v. Perry, the Court let stand a trial-court ruling invalidating California’s Proposition 8, which outlawed same-sex marriage.

As it happened, the Court’s decisions in Windsor and Perry, were announced in the middle of the second annual “Fortnight for Freedom,” during which the U.S. Catholic bishops have urged Catholics and their fellow citizens to focus on the importance of, and the threats to, the fundamental human right to religious freedom. Do the Court’s Windsor and Perry decisions, and the recent moves in several state courts and legislatures to include same-sex unions in the legal definition of “marriage,” constitute such a threat?

It might seem that they do not, because—as President Barack Obama observed in his statement responding to the rulings—“how religious institutions define and consecrate marriage has always been up to those institutions” and “nothing about [the Court’s] decision—which applies only to civil marriages—changes that.” It is true that core and unlikely-to-change First Amendment doctrines would almost certainly prevent any attempts by the states or the federal government to direct or limit “how religious institutions define and consecrate marriage” for their own internal, “religious” purposes. Indeed, some have argued—as Paul Griffiths did, for example, in Commonweal (“Legalize Same-Sex Marriage,” June 28, 2004)—that both the church’s freedom and “Catholic marriage practice” could be helped rather than hurt by the “disentanglement of sacramental marriage from state-sponsored contractual marriage” and, relatedly, by the legal recognition of same-sex marriage.

Griffiths is right to warn Christians against allowing debates about the government’s treatment and definition of marriage to distract us from, or absolve us for, the troubling fact that we too often fail, in our “practice,” to bear effective witness to what he calls the “seductive beauty” of the traditional understanding of marriage. I worry, though, that—as the editors of Commonweal have observed (“Protecting Religious Freedom,” July 29, 2011)—the dangers to religious freedom posed by the legal redefinition of marriage are real and that “disentanglement” is not a stable or feasible response to these dangers.

In an important 2008 volume called Same-Sex Marriage and Religious Liberty: Emerging Conflicts, an ideologically diverse collection of scholars identified carefully the many “potential church-state conflicts” that have been and will be “triggered by redefining legal marriage.” Again, these conflicts need not involve direct regulation of sacraments or rituals in order to challenge, threaten, or undermine believers’ and communities’ religious liberty. Instead, what is likely to happen—what is already happening, in fact—is that these conflicts will erupt and play out not within religious communities themselves but in the sphere of civil society, where they will involve, for example, requirements for professional licensing and accreditation, limits on religiously inspired expression and advocacy regarding marriage in public education and employment, conditions on otherwise generally available public benefits or on cooperation between governments and religious social-welfare agencies, expansions of the wide range of antidiscrimination laws and conscientious objections to those laws’ application, and attacks on the charitable and tax-exempt status of religious entities that adhere in their practices and teaching to the traditional view of marriage.

In recent years, a group of law professors (including me) with differing views on the policy merits of changing the legal definition of marriage has presented to legislators in various states a detailed analysis of these and other live and potential conflicts, and urged them to include in any new legislation not merely superfluous affirmations of churches’ authority over their own sacraments but also “meaningful religious freedom protections,” for both individuals and institutions, in both the private sphere of worship and belief and the public square of civil society. The group’s letters, in other words, take seriously the acknowledgment by President Obama and other prominent same-sex-marriage supporters that there are fair-minded and decent people on both sides of the argument and remind lawmakers that both prudence and principle counsel protection and respect for the consciences of religious believers and the distinctiveness of religious institutions.

These interventions have had nontrivial but admittedly modest effect. They have been criticized by some same-sex marriage advocates for privileging the irrational and atavistic objections of some over the full equality of others and, at the same time, they have been given low marks by some proponents of traditional marriage for offering naïve and premature concessions to an aggressive and uncompromising political and cultural campaign. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that it is important and worthwhile for those who see and embrace the connection between human dignity and the human right to religious freedom to do what they can—even if it does not seem like very much—to protect that right in and through law. Such work is not inconsistent with, and need not be counter-productive to, equally important efforts to, charitably and prudently, align the positive law with the truth about the person and enlist it in the service of the common good.

Justice Kennedy’s Windsor opinion and much of the commentary celebrating it provide good reasons to be wary and worried. The limited scope of the Court’s decision should not obscure the sweeping nature of its reasoning. At the end of the day, Section 3 of DOMA was struck down not so much because it intruded upon the policymaking prerogatives of the sovereign states but because—in Kennedy’s words—it “humiliates,” “demeans,” “disapprov[es],” and “seeks to injure.” It reflects, he charged, a “bare congressional desire to harm” and “writes inequality into the entire United States Code.” It is unconstitutional, really, not because it imposes a “one size fits all” definition and thereby hamstrings state-level experimentation, but because the Court majority thinks it reflects unsound, unreasonable, unenlightened, and unattractive opinions about marriage and family.

It is easier to respect religious freedom in law and policy when everyone agrees or when governments do not do very much. With disagreement and regulation, however, inevitably comes conflict between religious commitments and legal requirements and, when it comes, the majority tends to take care of itself. What about the rest? In a constitutional democracy like ours, we are generally willing to absorb some costs and suffer some inconveniences in order to accommodate the invocation of rights by dissenting or idiosyncratic minorities, especially when the majority thinks that it has a stake in those rights. For example, America still takes a robustly libertarian approach to the freedom of speech, and protects offensive and worthless expression to an anomalous extent, because most Americans still think that protecting misuses and abuses of the right is “worth it.”

However, as religious liberty increasingly comes to be seen as something clung to by a few rather than cherished and exercised by many, as religious traditions and teachings start to strike many as the expensive and even dangerous concerns of quirky, alien margin-dwellers, and as the “benefits” of allowing religious believers’ objections or religious institutions’ independence to stand in the way of the majority’s preferred policies begin to look more like extractions by small special-interest groups than broadly shared public goods, we should expect increasing doubts about whether religious liberty is really “worth it.” We should be concerned that the characterization by the majority in Windsor of DOMA’s purpose and of the motives of the overwhelming and bipartisan majority of legislators that supported it reflects a view that those states—and religious communities—that reject the redefinition of marriage are best regarded as backward and bigoted, unworthy of respect. Such a view is not likely to generate compromise or accommodation and so it poses a serious challenge to religious freedom.

Related: Right Decision, Wrong Reason


 

Topics: 

Comments

Commenting Guidelines

If religious freedom encompasses dictating to those who don't hold your doctrines or beliefs what their beliefs and practices should be, then it should be curtailed.

Catholic Christianity has co-existed in many places in Europe and Latin America in which marriage is a civil action.  Religious matrimonial ceremonies are strictly a voluntary matter and are not, in and of themselves, actions that determine whether people are married in the eyes of the state and, therefore, eligible for the rights, benefits and responsibilities associated therewith.

Cleary written by a fellow who knows a thing or two about choosing the most useful and subtle phrase to make a point.  Until doom was dragged center stage in the last two paragraphs.  Was that really necessary? 

More to the point.  It is unhelpful to toss around phrases such as "religious freedom" without defining terms.  Start with "religion".  If you mean Christianity, say so.  If mean, fire worshipers, say so.  As now, it has always been very popular  to throw in the word "freedom" whenever the need to raise a bit of ire arose.  The word itself in the real world is of no use whatever without its absolute connection to "responsiblity". 

The decrease in devotion to religion can easily be attributed in large part to those individuals and groups who claimed devotion to a particular religion that best met their material needs while they utterly ignored the responsiblities that religion required of them.  Is it really a surprise these same individuals now suggest there is some grand force beyond our control diminishing our ability to recognize and act upon useful truths?  Really?  Was it not their charade that helped us to delude ourselves in the first place?

We may demand as much religious freedom as our responsiblity to our religion grants us.  Assuming, of course, God and Thor are not synonymous.  Greatfully, the new Pope seems more than intelligent enough to have figured that one out.  I'm guessing that's one of the reasons he smiles often.

Let me understand:  it is only with the arrival of same sex marriage as an idea accepted by the mainstream that we have all of this discussion about religious liberty, that we have florists, photographers and others citing their religious liberty as a reason to not provide services to gay couples.   Civil law has long protected people from discrimination based on marital status, which includes divorce and remarried states.   No one argued religious liberty concerns, no secular business ever argued for a need to discriminate against "adulterous" (remarried) couples.  

One can dress it up in the fine cloth of religious liberty, but the reality is that people don't want to have to civilly recognize same sex marriages specifically, and will use a general principal of religious liberty to justify that discrimination.  They will wind up reaping the whirlwind by establishing the precedent that religious liberty means the ability to discriminate based on religion.  It would be much better for people who don't want to recognize same sex marriages to simply state that they specifically want the right to exclude gays than to make general arguments based on religious liberty.

If religious freedom encompasses dictating to those who don't hold your doctrines or beliefs what their beliefs and practices should be, then it should be curtailed.

 

And how is this construction different?

If same-sex marriage encompasses dictating to those who don't hold your doctrines or beliefs what their beliefs and practices should be, then it should be curtailed.

 

The words "humiliates, demeans and seeks to injure" is taken out of context. These words were used to describe the "discrimination" involved in denying Federal benefits to U.S. citizens (same sex couples) who are civilly married in a state, while these same Federal benefits are provided to U.S. citizens (heterosexual couples) who are civilly married in a state. The same concept of discrimination applies to denying the right of same sex couples to adopt children from a religious organization who sponors adoptions. Both cases involve civil law, non-discrimination and other regulations. 

The other question is "what religuous freedoms are we talking about" as Mightbe suggested. In other words, what religions are we talking about and what freedoms within such religions are we talking about? Some religions permit same sex marriages while other do not. Within the Catholic Church, the majority of Catholics don't have a problem with same sex civil marriages. The RCC hierarchy is against same sex civil marriages because they assert, unsubtantially, that such unions will undermine traditional marriages and the upbring of children as we know it, among other reasons. 

The issue was never about the right of religuous institutions from exercising their religuous freedom. It was all about civil law in a pluralistic society.

 

 

 

Bruce:  how exactly does someone entering into a CIVIL marriage that has nothing to do with your religious beliefs curtail those beliefs?

 

Do you believe the same for remarriage of those who have divorced?  How about those who marry with absolutely not intention/capability of procreation?

 

There is nothing under the SC cases dealing with DOMA or Prop 8 that require you to give religious recognition or assent to same-sex marriage.  But it does prevent you from preventing a CIVIL action .... just like a divorce .... from happening.

If a gay couple becoming legally married has no impact on a heterosexual married couple, why does a person who declines to participate in the gay couple's wedding harm them in any way?  Why shouldn't a person who does not accept same sex marriage as good in the eyes of god be allowed to simply retire from the field, rather than being punished through criminal fines and imprisonment for the expressive action of sitting it out?  Forcing someone to say something tehy disagree with violates freedom of speech, and forcing someone to do something they believe is sinful violates freedom of religion. 

We are facing real criminal prosecutions of real people for simply declining to be involved in same sex marriage ceremonies.  The gay couples are not being affected adversely.  Every evidence is that they have been able to find substitute servicesa that were fully adequate from other persons who don't have the same religious convictions as the dissenters.   So the government is imposing pain on people not to vindicate the right to same sex marriage, but to tell people they must forfeit their conscience if they are going to offer their services in the free market. 

Would the Attorney General of Washington State prosecute someone who refused to supply services to abortion clinics, or to companies that employ child and slave labor in other countries?  The AG has announced that he is now the Thought Police, the new Gestapo, and that anyone who fails to give the proper salute to same sex couples will be sent to jail. 

Does the AG actually think this will end the problem if he intimidates people into providing services under protest?  What if the services aren't as nice as the gay couple expected them to be?  Is the AG going to be putting people in jail as a substitute for a bad review on Angie's List?    The AG is undermining the rule of law by demonstrating he has no concern for individual rights or fairness.  Furthermore, he is turning gay couples into tyrants in the eyes of the larger community, and promoting division.  The more intolerant he is, the less accepting the rest of the community will be of the gay couples who threaten to coerce them against their will. 

It might have been helpful to explain how U.S. law already accommodates religious objections to, say, divorce.

 

Oh, right.  It doesn't.

The solution to the same-sex marriage dilemma in the United States is to treat all couples aspiring to a legal relationship the same way.  Couples intending to wed go to the local authority and get a license to marry.  This is not a marriage.  The local magistrate can perform that service, but more commonly, the couple's clergy who are authorized by the state to sign the marriage certificate, attesting to the contract, performs the ceremony. The solution is for states to dispense with licenses, revoke clergy authorizations, and require all couples, gay and straight, who desire to wed to make application for and undertake a civil union witnessed by the local magistrate.  In one stroke, this would remove the dispute over same-sex marriage from the political arena.   If a religious wedding is desired, the couple will have to take it up with their pastor or, in the case of the gay couple, find clergy disposed to perform the ceremony.  A civil union requirement for all couples is long overdue.

This is done in many other countries. 

Raymond:  any employee of an agency that grants marriage licenses is bound to treat all applicants who meet the posted requirements equally.  Choosing not to do that is a violation of the conditions of their job.  If they cannot do what they are paid to do, then they should find another job.

Any business owner who is open to the public is not free to discriminate just because they don't like a customer's looks, age, race, height or any other conditions that are not relevant to the services being provided.

As BobN stated about divorce .....

The difference is biology vs theology!

The author professes great concern that those states and institutions that reject the "redefinition of marriage"--that is, the expansion of the right to CIVIL marriage--may be seen as "backward and bigoted, unworthy of respect."

Compared with what gay couples have suffered through being refused civil marriage, I admit to being underwhemed by that danger to  the opponents of civil marriage.

If a state refuses rights to its citizens that are given in other states, rights whose denial clearly produce harm (refusal of inheritance rights, as in Windsor, or refusal to let a spouse see his/her spouse in the hospital, share benefits with a sick spouse, or have access to any of the other thousand or so rights that come with civil marriage), on the basis of sexual orientation, that state may indeed be seen as backward. More to the point, if those who block those rights do so on religious grounds, they are violating, or attempting to violate, the separation of church and state.

If an institution such as a church insists on attempting to deny the civil rights of citizens, including citizens who do not belong to that church, it is violating, or attempting to violate, the separation of church and state. That way lies theocracy, and theocracy has a far worse record of offenses against human freedom (and against religious freedom, for anyone but those who are running the theocracy) than democracy; those who oppose changes in civil marriage on religious grounds would do well to remember that.

As an American citizen who upholds the separation of church and state, I find those actions, though not those people, unworthy of respect.

As a Christian, I find those actions lacking in compassion, generosity, and agape. I do not find them worthy of respect any more than I found opposition to Loving v. Virginia, another case regarding civil marriage, worthy of respect. I do not find the current formulation of "natural law" to be more important than the core Gospel principles of love, justice, and willingness to see all things made new. I hope that when my brothers and sisters in Christ see that civil marriage for gay people does not harm them in any real and significant way, they will start acting in ways I can respect.

 

No one has to support gay marriage. One only has to declare that he/she believes it is unConstitutional, just like Obama did with DOMA.

SCOTUS doesn't have the authority to make laws that are against the nature of the universe and no one has to adhere to it. No sane person will ever condone gay marriage just as  no sane person ever condoned marriage.

LGBT rights are very different from the Civil Rights of the 1960's and of abolition--both were backed by the major religions of the world and were brought to the forefront by those outside the people being persecuted. --Rev. Martin Luther King, John Brown. Just read Uncle Tom's Cabin--largely responsible for a world-wide outcry against slavery.

Being gay--a sexual behavior, an act, a distorted affection and affectation is more like calling an abhorence of nose-pickers discrimination.

The gay couple who sued their "friend," the local baker, when she declined to bake a cake for their gay   "marriage" are the nastiest people I have ever heard of. Who does that? Where's the tolerance and understanding of her beliefs? Don't they have any class? They knew the baker and bought her goods for a long time. they knew her beliefs--they picked on her to make a point. That's plain evil. No jury will ever find her guilty--no person in the country will ever forget the gay couple's treachery either. I'd be careful of the food you force people to make--they will get the last laugh.

There are a lot of problems in the gay community that are being swept under the rug. How about a little honesty? How about we start to discuss the rampant AIDS and HIV transmittal to children under the age of eighteen in the gay community? How about the insurance rate for gay people is increased just like the rate for smokers is--because of factual scientific data. Let's make things really equal and dispense with the pretense.

 

Correction

. . . just as no sane person ever condoned abortion.

Correction

. . . just as no sane person ever condoned abortion.

Catarinasdaughter--

Separation of Church and State means keeping the government out of the Church's business. The Church's business is part of what happens in a civil society. Secularism is a "religious" belief system as well. No law has the right to shove any religion down anyone's throat against their conscience. Conscoence protections are meant to aide tghose who support self-evident truths. Natural laws are self-evident truths. Seems to me that you are a bit confused which would also explain your entire tirade. 

Same sex marriage accepted by the mainstream? No one accepts it. Everyone thinks it's really, really weird.

well it won't be easy once we have all states and the federal governments legally upholding the right to two human beings of adult age "registering" as a married couple.  But back in the 1950ies in Brown vs Brown, separate but equal was ruled unconstitutioal and it took decades to convince Christains, intergration  in education, at lunch counters, private business, housing, health and all goverment agencies now recognize the equal dignity of all human beings.  Isn't that what being a Christian is all about?  This isn't about marriage--it is about human dignity "made in the image of God". 

Margaret,

Calling people insane is extremely uncharitable.

Secularism isn't a religious belief system. It is a system of allowing people of different faiths to live together and govern themselves in a shared state. Neither the Catholics, nor the Lutherans, nor the Calvinists, nor the Jews, nor the Muslims, nor the Hindus, nor the atheists are allowed to dominate the others by forcing them to live by their religious practices. In order to impliment a policy, people are required to make a case that appeals to people who do not share their particular convictions. If the sole argument against gay marriage is "God created marriage as one man one woman," the rest of society who disagrees will rightfully see banning gay marriage as the imposition of the religious beliefs of others on them.

Catarinasdaughter--

Separation of Church and State means keeping the government out of the Church's business. The Church's business is part of what happens in a civil society. Secularism is a "religious" belief system as well. No law has the right to shove any religion down anyone's throat against their conscience. Conscoence protections are meant to aide tghose who support self-evident truths. Natural laws are self-evident truths. Seems to me that you are a bit confused which would also explain your entire tirade. 

Ryan--

Look up Secular Humanism--it is a be3lief system adhered to like religious fanaticism.

Ryan--

Uncharitable? The Truth does not discriminate. It's only Lies that discriminate.

Ryan says:

 

"If the sole argument against gay marriage is "God created marriage as one man one woman," the rest of society who disagrees will rightfully see banning gay marriage as the imposition of the religious beliefs of others on them."

Oh, my dear man, that is so not the only argument against gay marriage. Here are some of the others:

 

HIV/AIDS

Condoning infidelity

sociopathology

Disordered affectation psychosis

Incidences of child sexual abuse in gay community

Continuous outbursts and attacks against all religuious people

Grooming of children

Demanding that Moral Relativism and Secular Humanistic immorality be forced on every citizen

Exploitation of vulnerable children

The list is endless. Indulging in a homosexual lifestyle is a choice. It is also a symptom of a much deeper psychological problem that was never addressed. It is simply not dealing with reality and not dealing with reality and truth leads to insanity. I feel pity for those involved in the lifestyle and also know many gays whom I love dearly and know why they chose to find comfort in the arms of those of the same sex--abuse and neglect--mental and physical by the other sex. Their choice does not solve their problem, it only gives them an immediate physical comfort while the hatred of the other sex festers and while their own nature, spirit and self worth takes the form of lashing out and blaming othersw for a conscience fillede with guilt.

Mullins says the difference is biology v. theology.

Um, not quite. 

The difference is, actually, Truth v. Fiction and Lies; or Reality v. Insanity.

No one in their right might could possibly believe that Sex is the greatest achievement of a human being and kneel down to worship it, protect it, and criminalize anyone who disagrees with any sexual perversion or deviation that enters man's mind.

To give abnormal behavior, especially abnormal sexual behavior a platform that is equal to the standard bearer of all human relationship behavior called Marriage is to not quite understand what human beings are or what constitutes matter.

The best part about the SCOTUS ruling on Prop 8 and DOMA is that it alerted the entire nation--many of whom had better things to do than think about gays and sex--to the treachery going on when most of us said go ahead have civil unions if that'll make you happy; we really don't care. But now, like an errant, undisciplined child--gays crossed the line and are seeking after our children. We're done. We're all done. And the attacks on people, the snide remarks, the set-ups for public media attention--it's over. Watch closely how discipline works.

Mary Margaret Flynn says--

"But back in the 1950ies in Brown vs Brown, separate but equal was ruled unconstitutioal and it took decades to convince Christains . . ." Christians? Really? The majority of Black people are Christians. Martin Luther King was a Christian Minister. I don't think that as the majority in the South, Black American Christiand needed any convincing. So, that brings us to why did Jim Crow laws exist after the Civil war and the reublicans freed the slaves? The answer is the Democrats were so racist--and still are--that they institutede racial segregation laws in the South. The Democrats are also largely responsible for the genocide of abortion being committed against Black America as we speak. It was the Democrats who were fully involved in the EUGENICS societies and Margaret sangar a lead spokeswoman. After Hitler and WW II, eugenics fell out of favor and evolved itself into UNESCO--of the United Nations. Go do some research before you start spouting the lies of others.

Your name--Mary Margaret--means you were named after the Blessed Mother. A woman so revered by God that she was made so pure and remained so by her own will her entire life that she was taken up body and soul to heaven. Now, that story and that image is the most beautiful and respectful rendition of the powerful nature of a single woman whether you believe in God or not. Your words--two adult humans getting married--are you insane? Have you any clue what you are speaking about? No you don't. You don't believe, you have no faith, you use religion as a tool for your own selfish sinister purposes. Made in the image and likeness of God does not mean you are to follow your own will--you are to choose to follow God's--without making that choice there is no human dignity as is apparent in the daily behavior of people like you and the activists in the gay community.

OK, editors:  how long are you going to let this "Margaret" nonsense continue?

"The Jewish  couple who sued their "friend," the local baker, when she declined to bake a cake for their Jewish  "marriage" are the nastiest people I have ever heard of. Who does that? Where's the tolerance and "understanding of her beliefs? Don't they have any class? They knew the baker and bought her goods for a long time. they knew her beliefs--they picked on her to make a point. That's plain evil. No jury will ever find her guilty--no person in the country will ever forget the Jewish couple's treachery either. I'd be careful of the food you force people to make--they will get the last laugh."  I altered one word in one of Margaret's screeds.

" Indulging in a Jewish lifestyle is a choice. It is also a symptom of a much deeper psychological problem that was never addressed. It is simply not dealing with reality and not dealing with reality and truth leads to insanity. I feel pity for those involved in the lifestyle and also know many Jews whom I love dearly and know why they chose to find comfort in the arms of those of the same religion-abuse and neglect--mental and physical by Christians. Their choice does not solve their problem, it only gives them an immediate physical comfort while the hatred of Christ festers and while their own nature, spirit and self worth takes the form of lashing out and blaming others for a conscience filled with guilt."

Sweet Cakes by Melissa,, the Oregon Bakery who REFUSED to abide by Oregon's Non Discrimination Law SHUT DOWN.

And good on that.

The day people who are gay have to worry if they can order a cake or not is long gone.

http://www.mygaynetwork.com/2013/09/02/bigoted-oregon-bakery-closes-shop...

HERE is HOW FAKE they are about their religious beliefs. Don't believe it when oyu see "I can't serve gays, it's against my religion" All that is is simply Anti Gay people using Religion as an excuse for thier bigotry & predjudice.

This bakery and another who also refused a gay wedding cake were called and happily agreed to make DIVORCE Cakes, a New Single Mother Cake and all kinds of cakes that are supposedly against thier beliefs. They agreed to bake them no problem, of course but when it came to gay people THAT they wouldn't do. Here read this article

http://www.wweek.com/portland/article-20698-the_cake_wars.html

 

Share

About the Author

Richard W. Garnett is professor of law and associate dean of the University of Notre Dame Law School.