Jack pillips, a baker from Colorado refused to bake cake for a same sex couple. Philips states he does not have to bake the cake because it “would violate his Christian faith and hijak his right to express himself.” The couple he refused to serve, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, filed civil rights charges. They feel that they have been discriminated based on who they are and love. Phillips decision not serve the gay couple has led to the supreme court case which will be heard in the fall, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The Trump administration commented on the case last week and sided with Phillips and argued that, “Decorating a wedding cake is a type of ‘expressive conduct,’ similar to burning a flag or marching in a parade.” They say, “the Constitution’s free-speech protection gives the baker, a devout Christian, the right to refuse to participate in the marriage celebration of two men.” Colorado, however, has barred Phillips from making any more cakes because he refuses to abide by it Civil rights law. This case has taken a financial toll on Phillips since he has entirely stopped making cakes after a judge ordered him to also make cakes for same sex couples.
It only took Phillips 30 seconds to refuse the cake order from the couple. Phillips stated, “It's more than a cake, it's a piece of art in so many ways.” The couple he refused to serve replied by saying, “We didn't ask him for piece of art. He turned us away because of who we are.” After being rejected by Phillips, the couple comments on the threats and harassments they endured over phone calls, text messages and other social media sites.
The Colorado law says no “place of public accommodations” may deny people “the full and equal enjoyment of the goods [or] services … because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin or ancestry.” This argument has met with little success in lower courts, but the Supreme court has been receptive to free speech arguments. In January, the high court was due to act on the appeal from Phillips. At the time, the eight justices were waiting for President Trump to announce his nominee to fill the ninth seat. His choice, Justice Neil M. Gorsuch, is a Coloradan, a conservative and a champion of religious liberty. Gorsuch arrived in April, and on the last day of the term, the justices announced they would hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado.
- Do business owners have a religious privilege to refuse to serve individuals who violate their religious beliefs/norms?
- What precedent could Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission set for future supreme court cases regarding the rights of same-sex couples?
- What are your thoughts about the Trump administrations comments on the case (siding with Phillips). Could their support towards Phillips evoke other businesses to discriminate against same sex couples in the future?
This is a reallllyy interesting case.
ReplyDelete1. No. To me, denying a request to make a wedding cake for a gay couple is like denying to service someone because of the color of their skin, or having a sign saying "No Jews" on your door. I once saw a tweet that said, "Stop telling people to respect others' opinions. That's for things like 'I don't like coffee' not for 'I don't like black people'." I 100% agree—free speech shouldn't be used as cover for discrimination. Although, there isn't an exception to hate speech in the 1st amendment. The closest you get is with the exception of fighting words, but the baker wasn't trying to inflict violence...
2. Should the Supreme Court side with the couple, they could set a precedent for the idea that hate speech doesn't fall within one's right to free speech.
2. Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commision could set a massive precedent for anti-discriminatory laws throughout the country. If the Colorado Civil Rights Commisiion wins the case, it could means that business owners across the country could not deny a customer based on there sexuality or their orientation. This could eventually translate into anti-discriminatory laws for religion- i.e. a far-right christian businessowner could not deny a muslim couple- creating a more tolerant and progressive United States.
ReplyDelete1. This case is a very difficult one. While I completely stand for equality and LGBTQ rights, I still understand how it would be difficult to punish Philips. Freedom of religion is an important constitutional amendment, and it is being violated if Moore is lawfully required to do something he claims to be against his religion. However, I think that the freedom of religion mainly applies to religious practices such as prayer or certain religious wear. Just because homosexuality is against Philips' religion, does that really mean he cannot serve homosexual people? He is not being forced to partake in anything, just serve the couple as he would any others. This case in terms of freedom of religion reminds me of Santeria and other religious practices that have negative effects on others. If the practice of Philips' religious beliefs negatively impacts the justice of others, he should be stopped. In addition to this, he violates state laws through his actions, so he should not be allowed to continue to discriminate in his service.
ReplyDelete2. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission could set one of two precedents depending on how the courts rule. If Masterpiece Cakeshop wins, it may set the precedent that business owners are allowed to discriminate against same-sex on the basis of religious beliefs. On the other hand, if the Colorado Civil Rights Commission wins, it may set the precedent that people's freedom of speech, even through a cake, should be limited in order to protect others, such as same-sex couples, from discrimination.
ReplyDelete2.) It can set the precedent that if people use the argument that it goes against their beliefs they still have to treat people equally and not discriminate against people based on their sexual identity. It can further strengthen the precedent set in Obergefell V Hodges. It also further strengthens the 14th Amendment's Equal protection clause.
ReplyDeleteI think it’s possible that it will open the door to further discrimination. With Trump being the chief citizen, the person others look to for guidance on what’s acceptable, it would be hard to imagine that there wouldn’t be people who use his administration’s support of Phillips to justify discrimination on the grounds that they are exercising their free speech.
3.)
Delete1. We don't know if business owners have a religious privilege to refuse to serve individuals who violate their religious beliefs. That is why we have this case in the Supreme Court in the first place.
ReplyDeleteHowever, we can make predictions based off of previous precedent. For example, the precedents set in Hurley v. GLIB and Bob Jones University v. US seem to be contradicting. On one hand, in the Hurley case, a group can discriminate against another group if it protects their First Amendment right to not convey a message that they don’t want to convey(free speech clause). At the same time, when taking into account the very same First Amendment(religion clause), a university cannot get tax exempt status if they discriminate against another group. These contradictory rulings make it difficult to make a ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Therefore, we can say that both the cake maker and the gay couple have strong arguments that are rooted in the constitution. That is why this case can go either way and will most likely be a 5-4 vote.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete2. If Masterpiece Cakeshop wins, it will set the precedent that freedom of expression allows for people to determine who they want to provide busines for. It could be said the the baker is using his right to freedom of expression through making these cakes, and he should not have to 'express' him self in a way that he does not like. However, if the Colorado Civil Rights Commission wins, it will set the precedent that discrimination of any kind is not tolerated and should not be protected by the first amendment. People should not be allowed to refuse business to others just because they share different beliefs.
ReplyDelete1) I think that in most situations, companies should not be able to discriminate against anyone who violates their religious stances, especially larger corporations. On the other hand, the cake shop owner has the 1st amendment right to deny the gay couple a special service. If the government forced the cake baker to make the cake, it would violate the free exercise clause. If he refused to let the gay couple be in his shop at all that would be discrimination, but the service of making a specialized cake is the owners choice and he has the right to do that.
ReplyDeleteI don’t think business owners should have a religious privilege to refuse to serve individual who violate their religious beliefs and and norms unless their business is based off of a religiously affiliated idea. That is not the case in the Masterpiece Cakeshop. Baking is not a religiously affiliated idea. The equal protection clause has been argued to not only apply to discrimination based on sex, but also sexual orientation. Therefore under the equal protection clause, businesses with no affiliation should not have religious privilege to refuse service to individuals who violate their beliefs or norms.
ReplyDelete1. I believe business owners have a religious privilege to refuse to serve individuals who violate their religious beliefs. A business owner worked hard to start their business, fund it, and keep it going all based on their ides and dreams. Although I do not think discrimination is okay, I think that in this case the business owner simply did not want to do business with these people because they went against his religious beliefs, and I think that is his right. I don't think he should be forced to do business with people he doesn't want to do business with him when it is his own privately owned business.
ReplyDelete2. I think that this has little to do with the rights of same-sex couples. Same-sex couples should, by all means, be able to enjoy the same freedoms as others. However, the Constitution also protects the right to free practice of religion. Masterpiece Cake Shop is a private business that did not completely refuse service to the couple. Based on my interpretation, the circumstances are fairly favorable to the Cake Shop in terms of the case. This case should NOT be used to decide civil rights cases concerning gays in the future. The case is a matter of free exercise.
ReplyDelete3. I believe it is plausible that the Trump administration's support of Phillips will lead to further discrimination. Discrimination is something that stems from discriminatory behavior from high ranking officials. In this case, if discrimination is upheld, it would most likely bring about other discriminatory practices.
ReplyDelete1. When it comes to a business owner's religious beliefs, I don't think its plausible or acceptable to deny service to someone who disagrees with your belief if it's a commodity and a law such as that in Colorado prohibits it. With that being said, Phillips didn't deny service to the couple. He told them they were welcome anytime and could purchase whatever they would like, as long as he did not have to create his own personally designed cake for an event that did not agree with his beliefs. Because he offered any other item in the store to him, even any other pre-made cake, I do not view this as a denial of service. Unfortunately, a decision in either direction will end poorly. If the court sides with the baker, then the question of what is "artistic expression" would come into question and allow people who make jewelry, do make up, or even other food could claim their products as "artistic expression" and deny service to those they don't agree with. This could potentially reduce all the gains made in minority rights in the previous years. However, if the court sides with the couple, then the free-exercise clause would undoubtedly take a hit, and an individual's beliefs would mean nothing in the workplace, another dangerous precedent that would alienate individual liberties. In the end, I feel as though taking this case to the top will do more harm than good. If a business reserves the right to refuse artistic expression for an idea they don't agree with, go down the street. Competition drives capitalism and I believe that any company who outright discriminates would lose a large portion of its service.
ReplyDelete1. In the case of Phillips I believe that private business have the right to not serve anyone of their preference, however obviously unjustified behavior is not okay. That would conclude discrimination. In order to analyse this if someone says no to serve for variously reason and they are constant like the baker in this case we cannot say its discrimination. If It's a real moral held by this man. I believe it is totally justifiable and there is no issues revolving the circumstance but I'm very eager to hear what SCOTUS says.
ReplyDelete1. I do think that businesses have these rights but there should also be a specific rule sets for minorities like LGBT - we just have to face the facts that there is absolutely nothing wrong with people from said minority and refusing them service on this basis is just as harmful as refusing service based on race or skin-color.
ReplyDelete1. I don't think that business owners hold these privileges. Had this been a case on race, people would be more ready to call out racism. Racial discrimination is seen as a red flag, especially to the Supreme Court (strict scrutiny!). I think homophobia should be put on the same scale as racism. It is unfair to deny someone their rights based of sexuality.
ReplyDelete