On Tuesday, the Supreme Court of the United States began to hear oral arguments in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop V Colorado. Back in 2012, a gay couple came into the shop and tried to order a wedding cake. Baker Jack Phillips told the couple that they could buy anything else premade in his store, but he was not going to use his artistic ability to design something he did not believe in. The couple complained to the CCRV (Colorado Civil Rights Commission) and after a couple rulings that the baker was in violation of the Colorado Civil Rights Laws, the case has been appealed to the supreme court.
Within the hearing, Colorado’s laws on Freedom of expression comes face to face with it’s anti discriminatory laws as the big question is posed, is he discriminating based on sexual-orientation or is he trying to invoke his own first amendment rights entailing freedom of religion. As it is currently a grey area, many of the Justices are cautious about how to rule in this case. As observed by the questions being asked by the Justices, a key concern is as to what precedent the outcome would create. Would siding with the Baker open the door to more severe discriminatory violations? Would ruling against the baker highlight the idea of forcing one to go against their fundamental beliefs?
In the middle of all this, the expected key vote is Anthony Kennedy. Many are curious as to how he will rule as well as he has been a general supporter of gay rights yet also a protector of freedom of speech. In the courtroom however, he revealed potential support for Phillips when questioning whether the bakers beliefs were being respected by the CCRV. The court is expected to split 4 and 4 with Kennedy serving as the swing vote. A decision however will likely take months.
- In the article it states that Baker Jack Phillips claimed, “his cakes are expressive works of art, and that making a cake for a same-sex wedding would force him to send a message of approval of same-sex marriage, which he rejects for religious reasons. He’s willing to sell premade cakes to same-sex couples, but not wedding cakes made to order.” - Do you feel that this is a case of discrimination or of protecting first amendment freedoms?
- Based on his comments, which way do you think Kennedy will swing?
- No matter what precedent the outcome establishes, how much of an impact do you think this case overall will have had?
1. This case is very controversial. On one hand, their is discrimination towards a same-sex couple who were denied services due to who they were. While the baker, has his religious freedom rights that justify his actions. In my opinion, this case raises the question of both discrimination and protecting the first amendment. If the same-sex couple wins then religious people like Phillips could be forced to abandon their religious beliefs, which then would violate the first amendment because it is taking his religious freedom right away. The on the other hand, if the baker wins, then discrimination will be open in public areas against same sex couples. I believe that it is wrong for individuals to use their religion as an excuse to not serve someone they do not agree with. This case is very complicated and if the decision favors the baker then discrimination will be explicit in society and will be done under the shield of religion.
ReplyDelete1) The argument given by the cake shop is far stronger than the gay couple fighting saying it is held as discrimination. If we look at what brought this idea to the Supreme Court we see that the Colorado anti-discrimination law and first amendment is the key concepts. Given hat the baker allowed them to purchase and buy in his store but not allowing personalized cake shows that he is genuinely sticking to his beliefs. He has shown a running history of this so its far from a first occurrence. He has stated he does not make Halloween cakes or cakes with profanity or alcohol. This is evidence that he truly is expressing his beliefs and not just choosing targets. The gay couple also seemed to take this a bit far considering that on some level, yes it is discrimination but its not just you who he has denied service to. His private business has realistically done nothing wrong but its not far off the it could be look at as discrimination against same-sex couples.
ReplyDelete2. At first, Kennedy was sympathetic towards the same-sex couple but later became concerned with the baker's religious freedom being threatened.
ReplyDeleteOn one hand, he states that if the baker is to win he can put up a sign stating that he would not bake cakes for same-sex couples, which would be an "affront to the gay community".
On the other hand, he also explains that "tolerance is essential in a free society" and that "the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs."
In the end, Kennedy can go either way. He most likely doesn't want to give Colorado an unqualified victory and at the same time he probably doesn't believe that the "First Amendment can override basic nondiscrimination laws in public accommodations like a bakery".
3. I believe that this case will be very impactful. This is a complex issue and the decision will set the precedent for discrimination cases to come. It could possibly decide that the first amendment can be limited when discrimination is a factor. Or, it may decide that the freedom of expression allows for people to deny business to certain groups/people. Either way, this will have a lasting impact on exactly how discriminatory people are allowed to be.
ReplyDelete1) I believe that this is a case of First Amendment protection. The cake shop owner has the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion in this case. If he were forced to make a cake going against his religion, it would be a violation of the free exercise clause. The government would be preventing the shop owner from exercising his religious beliefs that gay couples should not be married. I also think that the gay couple took this whole thing way out of proportion as they shop owner said he would sell them any other cake in the shop.
ReplyDelete1. This case is very controversial and personally, I think it is very difficult to pick a side. On one hand, there is discrimination of same sex marriage in a public place, which is not good. However, this man owns his own business and this brings up the question: doesn't he have the right to refuse service if it is his privately owned business? Although I don't believe his discrimination was okay or justified, I think that he has the right to decide who he will or will not do business for if it is his own establishment.
ReplyDelete3. Regardless of the precedent this case sets, I believe it will have a very small impact overall. It is very difficult to choose between free speech and equal treatment especially discrimination against gay people. Therefore, when SCOTUS writes the majority opinion, they will probably avoid vague positions and instead explain their decision with a lot of detail about this particular case.
ReplyDeleteKennedy will swing towards Masterpiece Cake Shop. He is usually concerned with the precedent that the case will establish, and worries that the case may lead to people being unable to express themselves properly, as well as practice their religion freely. It is most likely that Kennedy maintains a rather conservative perspective.
ReplyDelete2) Based on comments, Kennedy will probably be against gay rights. His vote on Obergefell v. Hodges supports that he would vote in favor of gay rights. But his questioning as to whether the baker's views were respected by the CCRV ultimately suggests that he is in support of the Baker.
ReplyDelete1. It's the fact that Jack Phillips brings up religion that makes this case so challenging. It's discriminatory to deny homosexual people their right to basic daily activities like buying a cake, but it's also discriminatory to reject someone's religion because you don't agree with a certain aspect of it (Native Americans with the peyotee, Santarien's animal sacrifice). Overall, both sides have a violation of first amendment rights, making this case more about 1st amendment rights rather than just discrimination.
ReplyDelete1. I believe that this is not a case of discrimination. Unfortunately, because it was treated as such, the decision now has the possibility of removing religious freedoms or endangering the progress made by minority groups depending on which direction the decision leans. I think the key fact of this case was Phillips' distinction between denial of service and denial of expression. Because he views a personally made cake as his own artistic expression, forcing him to portray an image or celebrate an event that he does not agree with violates his freedom of expression or freedom to not express rather. Furthermore, I believe the couple lose the case because Phillips said they were welcome in his store at anytime and could even buy any other item in the store, stripping the case of any real discriminatory claims. Again, the unfortunate part of this decision, which I believe will be in favor of the baker, has the possibility of undoing a lot of progress in advancing gay rights and will call into question the ability of many other practices' abilities to deny service for violation of freedom of expression.
ReplyDelete3. Although I would like to personally believe the opposite, in which this case would set a large precedent for the cases that ential similar controversy, I don't think that this case will have a huge impact. At first, I thought it totally would, but after reading the sources and thinking twice, no matter what, this will not be an easy decision for the SCOTUS to come to terms with. Furthermore, I think that because this is such a hard decision, it might not be easy to name a side "unconstitutional" as this case is very unique when compared to the others. Because of this, i think that when the time comes for the Court to make a decision, it will not only be difficult and close, but it will come with lots of reasoning behind their jurisdiction.
ReplyDeletethis "unknown" comment was made by me, Emily Shatz!
Delete1. This case will have a relatively small outcome because of the situation of the case. The precedent they are trying to set i that everyone should be treated equal but in doing this they are slightly violating the Free Exercise Clause which allows people to practice their religious beliefs. Due to the amount of freedom homosexuals have gained in recent years this one case about a single cake shop, I don't think will make a huge difference.
ReplyDelete3. I think this case will be very influential, as it will set a president for what is more important, freedom of speech or protecting people from discrimination specifically homophobia. If Phillips wins, this could be bad for homosexuals in the future. However this case will probably only be applied to art patronage, not regular merchandise. If Phillips loses, the possible consequences could be that black people could be forced to make KKK cakes or jews forced to make Nazi cakes. This case will be important in determining if the first amendment or protection from discrimination is deemed more important.
ReplyDelete3. I don't think this case will have a huge impact on setting the president just because of its scale - no one was hurt, put in jail, or seriously injured. I don't know enough about the Supreme Court process to understand whether this plays a role but - even though we understand this this case is symbolic - the case doens't seem all that serious.
ReplyDelete1. I think that this is a case of discrimination. I don't think that the baker is exercising free speech/freedom of religion because there are religious people who support the LGBTQ+ community. Moreover, the 14th Amendment reminds us of our civil rights, and the US government should protect the rights of people, regardless of their sexual preferences.
ReplyDelete3. I think whichever way it goes, the case will have a significant impact. If it goes in favor of the cake maker (which I imagine it will) it will send the message that an LGBTQ+ person may or may not have the same rights walking into any privately owned store as a cis straight person, which I believe is sad and blatantly discriminatory.
ReplyDelete