Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Constitutional Issues Raised by the Plaintiff

One of the constitutional concerns raised by Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, asserts that the application of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) in a manner that compels him to create a wedding cake for same-sex couples would violate his First Amendment right according to him free speech. Phillips is a staunch Christian who openly expresses his religious belief to his clients that God's objective for marriage was that it was a union meant for one woman and one man (Robinson & Frost, 2018). Therefore, coercing him to express his artistic talent of making wedding cakes for same-sex couples would be contrary to the provisions of free speech as stipulated within the principles of the First Amendment. Additionally, the plaintiff argues that the requirement that he should manufacture cakes for the same-sex wedding would undermine his right to express the free exercise of religion which is also enshrined in the First Amendment.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

Constitutional Issues Raised by the Defendant

Following the need for dispute resolution on the grounds of discrimination, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission conducted an investigation on Masterpiece Cakeshop by the notions of CADA. The Commission found probable cause that CADA had been violated since a discrimination complaint on the grounds of sexual orientation had been filed against the plaintiff. The defendant argues that Mr. Phillips refused to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex couples since the latter's religious beliefs prohibited him from offering such services. Moreover, Mr. Phillips denied his services to same-sex couples since at the time the state of Colorado did not legally recognize gay marriages hence by creating a wedding cake for same-sex couples, he assumed he would be a participant in an illegitimate activity.

Judges' Opinion

In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission the Supreme Court majority opinion held that the Court of Appeal had erred in its decision to rule against Mr. Phillip's business. This occurrence may be attributed fundamentally to the gross violations of the Free Exercise Clause as is perceived in the First Amendment of the American Constitution. Indeed, the application of the CADA principles in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop lacked neutrality towards religion (Murray, 2014). This implies that Mr. Phillips refusal to utilize his artistic skills to come up with a powerful statement that defines his endorsement in his own accord has a significant First Amendment speech element that epitomizes his sincere religious beliefs. Further, Mr. Phillips refusal of service is understandable since, at the time of filing the case, the State of Colorado had not acknowledged the validity of gay marriages. Indeed, the State Law at the time had provided storekeepers with the option of declining to create particular messages which they deemed offensive. Equally important is the fact that Mr. Phillips was entitled to respectful and neutral considerations of in regards to the claims he presents in all circumstances of the case.

Conclusion

All the above considerations were compromised as evidenced by the impermissible hostility that was directed towards genuine religious beliefs by the Commissioners who put Mr. Phillips on trial. For instance, one Commissioner openly proposed that religious beliefs may not be exercised in commercial or the public sphere including the disparaging of Mr. Phillips faith as being merely rhetorical and despicable (Pizer, 2015). Such comments highlight doubts on the impartiality on the part of the Commission in its decision-making process against Mr. Phillips.

References

Murray, M. (2014). Accommodating Nonmarriage. S. Cal. L. Rev., 88, 661.

, J. C. (2015). Navigating the minefield: Hobby Lobby and religious accommodation in the age of civil rights. Harv. L. & Pol'y Rev., 9, 1.

Robinson, R. K., & Frost, D. M. (2018). LGBT Equality and Sexual Racism. Fordham Law Review, 86(6), 2739.