Report Example on Same-Sex Marriage & Masterpiece Cakeshop: A Religious Standoff

Introduction

Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, in July 2012. They called for the owner, Jack C. Philips, to make a cake for their wedding. However, Philips refused because his religion does not allow him to make cakes for same-sex matrimonies. He held the belief that adorning cakes is a type of art through which he can remain righteous to God. As such, God would be unhappy with him for creating cakes intended for same-sex marriages (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018). Craig and Mullins viewed this as discrimination and charged Philips at the Colorado Civil Rights Division. They purported that they had been victimized grounded on their sexual placement under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). The Division then gave notice of determination identifying the probable cause, and Craig and Williams proceeded to file a complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts. They purported that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in the desecration of CADA (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018). The Administrative Law Judge gave a transcribed directive backing Craig and Mullins, which was accredited by the Commission’s conclusion.

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

Save 25%

Procedural History

Colorado Civil Rights Commission stated the ruling was in favor of Craig and Mullins and cake shop ordered to change its policies and deliver cakes to same-sex marriages. Masterpiece appealed the ruling, but the decision made by the state was maintained because making cake was part of the manner for Philip’s business and not a manifestation of unrestricted exercise of religion or speech. The case was then appealed to the Supreme Court of Colorado that declined to listen to the petition.They further appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari which agreed to examine the case and the dispute heard on December 5, 2017.

Rules

Specific rules were fundamental to the assessment of government neutrality in the case. One of these is the Anti-Discrimination Act, which forbids discrimination founded on sexual placement in a business dwelling, especially one committed to selling goods and services to the community ("Anti-Discrimination Laws in USA - L&E Global Knowledge Centre", 2017). Another relevant rule is the right for all people to exercise essential autonomies under the First Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. As such, the privileges emphasized here include autonomy of speech and free practice of religion.

Application/Analysis

The Court did not generally issue a ruling due to the connection of rights to free exercise and anti-discrimination laws. The Court was directed to the state actors such as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. They were required to guarantee that there was considerate scrutiny of allegations for religious omissions from the anti-discrimination laws planned by persons who use the First Amendment right to free religious exercise. Nevertheless, this exemption would not broadly apply in upcoming cases since cases like that of Craig and Mullins needed to be solved with lenience (Bonauto, 2020). They also needed to consider aspects such as religious beliefs and without exposing gay people to humiliations as they are pursuing items that are usually sought by almost everyone in the country. Also, access to exclusive products such as cakes should not be denied. Instead, they should be served in the same way as heterosexual individuals. Moreover, the Supreme Court depicted that gays are eligible for robust defense privileges. The judge, Kennedy, decided and precisely identified the antagonism directed to Philip by the Commission as the main intention they reversed the ruling (Bonauto, 2020). Due to this aggression in the present case, it was impossible to rule on the wider matter concerning anti-discrimination regulation and free exercise of religion. As such, the judge’s decision confirmed that there is still defense of same-sex couples and gay privileges that states can even be imposed through the anti-discrimination regulations. It is relevant to note that the common role of anti-discrimination laws is to avert discrimination against sexual placement issues (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 2018).

Conclusion

The Court sustained that the Commission’s actions dishonored the Free Exercise Clause. They noted that the rules and Constitution could and even in some cases must guard gay people and couples in the implementation of their civil rights. However, religious and rational oppositions to gay marriage are safe views and safeguarded forms of expression, even in some cases. In this case, the Court ruled that Philips was eligible for a humble and impartial consideration of his claims in all circumstances. The Court further depicted that the deliberation Philips was authorized to be conceded by how the Commission handled the case. It revealed aspects of hostility towards genuine religious beliefs, and this inspired his complaint. The Court further indicated that under the Free Exercise Clause, the state had the obligation to not base their rules or laws on aggression to a religious perspective.

References

Anti-Discrimination Laws in USA - L&E Global Knowledge Centre. (2017). Retrieved 24 July 2020, from https://knowledge.leglobal.org/anti-discrimination-laws-in-usa/

Bonauto, M. (2020). Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: What Was and Wasn't Decided | ACS. Retrieved 24 July 2020, from
https://www.acslaw.org/analysis/acs-supreme-court-review/masterpiece-cakeshop-v-colorado-civil-rights-commission-what-was-and-wasnt-decided/

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1718 (2018).