Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Case Summary

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This is an important, and dangerous case, for civil liberties. It involves a bakery owner who refused to bake a custom cake for a gay wedding. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled that Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, engaged in sexual orientation discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). This discrimination occurred when Mr. Phillips declined to design and create a custom cake honoring the same-sex marriage of David Mullins and Charlie Craig.

Under Colorado case law, any covenant not to compete, which restricts the right of any person to receive compensation for performance of skilled or unskilled labor for any employer shall be void, unless the agreement fits into one of four statutory exceptions, such as the employee qualifying as executive and management personnel. If the agreement fits into one of the four exceptions it must be deemed reasonable in scope and duration, to be enforceable. Is the non-compete Mr. Marin signed, reasonable in scope and duration when he is not allowed to work for a period of two years in the states of Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Wyoming, Utah, or Kansas in directly or indirectly entering into the employ of, or rendering any service to, any person, partnership, association, corporation, or other entity engaged in cultivating cannabis; processing, extracting, or manufacturing cannabis concentrates, edibles, or other products; or dispensing medical or recreational cannabis.

The people involved in defending this case was Richard G. Evans and The one against this case was Roy romer. This case came about when the christian groups went around signing petitions to put the second amendment on the ballot stating that this would repeal any state or local laws protecting lesbians, gays,or bisexual orientation. The 53% percent of colorado voted on this and it passed. That ended up with Evans the administrator in denver suing Romer for violation on the 14th amendment which prohibits states from denying anyone the equal protection of The laws.

A few decades ago, the notion that nature had legal standing with the same rights as people existed on the fringes of the environmental movement. But as a recent spate of legal decisions show, attitudes towards ecological systems are changing.

In this case, Perry, the plaintiffs compiling of Kristen Perry and Sandra Stier, a same- sex couple, filed suit in federal court after being denied the right to marry under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. They named the defendants Hollingsworth which consisted of California’s governor, attorney general, other state and local officials responsible for enforcing the California’s marriage laws. For the reason that Governor Schwarzenegger, and other officials not wanting to defend Proposition 8 that amended the California Constitution the federal District Court allowed ballet proponents to defend it. After it was deemed unconstitutional the original defendants decided not

Because they did not makes these laws however, the amendment is valid, and should be considered constitutional. Additionally, there is a general law in Colorado that bans discrimination in general, and includes the protection for homosexuals, that would not be affected by the amendment. Furthermore, Scalia believes Kennedy’s argument is invalid because he does not use enough legal citation to provide evidence for his views, therefore the amendment should be allowed in Colorado.

If this happens “The Department of Justice can bring a lawsuit under Title II, when there is a reason to believe that a person has engaged in a pattern or practice of discrimination in violation of Title II.” This is exactly what happened in the case between the couple and the baker. The couple felt as if they were being discriminated against when Phillips refused to make a cake for the couple. However, under amendment one it states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances ( ).” Which was the stance Phillips took on the court case. So, during this whole court case, it was Civil Rights Act versus the first amendment. That is why this particular case was so prominent in today’s society. Either way, the judges ruled they were justified, it came down to seeing which law or amendment had the most

In 2012, a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado and requested a cake for their wedding. The owner of the store declined to create a cake for the couple, stating he would not do so because of his religious beliefs. The couple filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and claimed they had been discriminated against based on sexual orientation. This case concerns the 14th and 1st amendments. The 14th amendment (and the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits discrimination against individuals based on items such as sexual orientation. Had the same-sex couple’s 14th amendment rights been violated because they had been refused service? Or, was the store owner using

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullens were denied a wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop due to the owner’s, Jack C. Phillips, religious beliefs. Phillips reasons were that his baking was meant to be art unto God and that creating a cake for a same-sex couple would displease God, which he reinforced with the fact that Colorado had not legalized same-sex marriage. The couple then filed charges with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act: this legislation prohibits any public accommodation from denying any person services based on gender, sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. The court had ruled in favor of the couple and ordered Phillips to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company

The article was published on May 2017 (Williams, 2017). Its author was Joseph Williams. The article talks about discrimination in the court, which hinders justice from prevailing. The author reports on a case involving two men who had married each other and the Colorado bakery (Williams, 2017). The bakery had refused to make a cake for the

In the case of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the petitioners, versus Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., the respondents, the court sides with the petitioners. This claim is based upon an argument meant to highlight the discriminatory nature of refusing service within a public accommodation. The actions of Masterpiece Cakeshop, first, violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law as the bakery exists as a public accommodation, rather than an individualized entity. Second, it is invalid to believe Phillips was discriminatory on the grounds of conduct rather than character as one cannot exist without the other; thereby, Phillips cannot choose to abstain from baking cakes for same-sex marriages due to religious beliefs without denying service to same-sex

In 2012, gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado to purchase a cake for their wedding. Their request was denied by the owner, Jack Phillips, because he is Christian and does not support gay marriage. He sent them away because he believes that since making a cake for a gay wedding goes against his religious beliefs, he doesn’t have to make it. The couple felt discriminated because of who they are, and filed civil rights charges against Phillips. David and Charlie say that Phillips shouldn’t be able to deny them goods from a public shop just because of their sexual orientation. To this Phillips explains that he would be happy to serve the couple or any LGBT person regular baked goods, such as a birthday cake or cookies, but he refuses to use his talents to create a cake for a religious celebration in which he doesn’t support. But is he allowed to do this? According to Phillips he should be protected by the first amendment, freedom of speech. Baking and decorating cakes is his art and a way of expressing himself, and he doesn’t in any way want to express an acceptance for something he doesn’t agree with. The couple, along with various gay rights groups, don’t see this as any kind of excuse for turning down and discriminating customers in a shop open to the public, which should include anyone and everyone. It’s a matter of equality, and Charlie and David aren’t being treated the same way as others customers, which is unfair. The couple

The gay couple, David Ermold and David Moore, in Morehead, Kentucky, walked into a county clerk’s office to receive a marriage license. In June, the Supreme Court legalized same-sex marriage and ordered that such licenses be distributed. All though, even with this order, County Clerk Kim Davis refused to issue any and all marriage licenses to any and everybody. In addition, Davis claimed to be of Apostolic Christian faith and giving out gay marriage licenses went against her faith. This matter was then taken to court where Judge David L. Bunning incarcerated her when she rejected the alternative of giving out the licenses. While the couple exercised their 9th Amendment rights, Davis was shown to be using her 1st Amendment rights given to her all the same. But like rules, there are loopholes where those rules can be bent or altered. As expected, this case birthed controversy in which the people took sides in who was in the right. Everyone is given rights until they prove to not be trusted with them.

After Mr.Mullins and Mr. Craig leave the cake shop they start the process to sue Mr. Phillips because he is discriminating against a group of people. Colorado has a state law that says a business that discriminates against another group can be closed by the state. Due to state law being questioned the case is moved to the Supreme Court. Mr. Phillips’s point is that his talent of baking cakes is a art, and he would be happy to sell the couple a pre made cake or a custom cake for another occasion other than a wedding because it is against his religion. Mr. Phillips is using the First Amendment freedom of speech to speak out against the marriage of the same gender because it is against his religion. On the flipped side Colorado is siding with Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig because state law says no discriminating at all in any business in the state of Colorado. Only 21 states have this law that protects marriage of the same gender. The Civil Rights Act doesn't protect gay marriage it is left up to the states to decide if it’s a law. The Trump administration is in favor of Mr. Phillips which is rare because the Justice Department is ruling against a nondiscrimination law. In the end Supreme Court

This case is important to Phillip and Masterpiece Cakeshop because of the his freedom to practice religion and his freedom of speech. Phillip is a Christian that believes God works as he chooses, even going as far as to say “[God] has chosen this bakery to do a lot of different things that we had never planned and that we would never want to stop”. When the two men came in to ask for a cake for their same-sex wedding, Phillip had to deny making them the cake as he did not want to design a cake that would promote something that is against his faith (“Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission”). Phillip also believes that since his cakes are more than cakes, but they are also art. If the government were to make Phillip make cakes that go against his beliefs, they would be stopping his freedom of speech (Liptak).