When the Supreme Court goes beyond the intent of the people who ratified the Constitution, the people are cut out of the process. quote of who? That is the essential problem of an activist court that legislates from the bench. It is interesting to look at the arguments that are put forth in the case of the baker who refused to create a same-sex marriage wedding cake. The arguments that held to permit same-sex marriage can be used to defend the Christian baker. Here is how that happens.
As Written By Tom Trinko for the American Thinker:
When the Supreme Court ruled that gay marriage was not only legal but mandated by the Constitution, the majority were declaring that the Constitution meant whatever the majority of the Supreme Court wanted it to mean. It was an exercise is pure totalitarianism and a rejection of the very idea that power flows from the people.