Jack Phillips Religious Practices

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

In this article, “Kentucky Clerk Ordered to Jail for Refusing to Issue Gay Marriage License” the author James Higdon focuses on the recent topic of gay marriage. Higdon’s story relates to a Kentucky woman named Kim Davis. Davis was arrested September 3, 2015 because she refused to issue marriage license to a gay couple. “Under questioning from her attorney, Davis went on to express her opposition to same-sex marriage, which she said was ‘not of God’ and contrary to natural law and therefore not something that she could condone” (Higdon). This quote shows that Davis refused to issue marriage licenses because of her religious beliefs. Davis’s religious beliefs are so strong that she continued to fight with the law and the court judge

The author, Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter of the article, “Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cake case” states, “The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law.” This complaint was filed after Jack Phillips denied David Mullins and Charlie Craig their wish for a wedding cake. The complaint shows that the baker was violating the state’s law of anti-discrimination, which was wrong to do. The same author, Ariane de Vogue, CNN Supreme Court Reporter of the article, “Supreme Court hears same-sex marriage cake case” states, “‘This case is about more than us, and it's not about cakes," Mullins said in an interview. "It's about the right of gay people to receive equal service.’”

In “Texas clerks could refuse to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples.” (2015), Lauren Gambino states that Texas clerks can refuse to issue marriage license to same sex couples, they can justify their refusal on the grounds of religious liberty. Gambino supports her claim by providing factual evidence--including quotes from Texas clerks, which makes her more ethical, because she provides a neutral informative article on this matter. Gambino hopes to inform US citizens of what is going on in Texas, following the same sex marriage legalization by the Supreme Court, while enticing anger

The first spark to set flames to the waging war on marriage equality happened on October 15, 1971. In the Supreme Court case of Baker v. Nelson on October 15, 1971, one of three cases brought forth by same-sex couples, Richard Baker and James Richard McConnell were denied a marriage license by a county court clerk in Minnesota in May of 1970 (Minnesota Legislature, 1971, Richard John Baker and Another v. Gerald R. Nelson). The initial trial court dismissed their claim, declaring that the clerk had the power to refuse the right of marriage to gay couples. The couple lost again in the Minnesota Supreme Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court followed by confirming the ruling. For the next twenty four years, basic human rights were continuously denied nationwide in cases similar to Baker v. Nelson and in anti-gay attempts to restrict homosexual marriage. Eventually, there showed signs of hope such as the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in May, 1996 and Massachusetts becoming the first state to legalize same-sex marriage in December, 1996. In relatively recent news, the LGBTQ community celebrated a monumental win as the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage a constitutional right for Americans nationwide. On the 25th of June, 2015, many rejoiced this new ruling. Unfortunately, just as many were disgusted at the new legislation. The topic of marriage equality is a unique controversy due to the fact that it gathers so many strong opinions to the cause from many different walks of life.

The First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is responsible for freedom and religion and it allows individuals to to practice whatever religion that they chose (Moran, 2014). Also, due to the Title VII, employers can not refuse to hire a person because he or she is a member of a particular religion.

Some cases end in favor of the same sex couple and others do not. In the Washington Post it is stated that in the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights, President Trump’s solicitor general, Noel Francisco, had a very honest opinion. Francisco said, “leaving the law intact would mean that an African American sculptor could be forced to make a cross for a Ku Klux Klan event if he made crosses for the general public” (Konnoth). Because of the 14th amendment, gays, whites, blacks, women, etc are protected from discrimination. If the law were to go away, it would be every person for themselves. Francisco has a good point in his comment. An African American who doesn’t believe in the Ku Klux Klan shouldn’t have to make a cross for them, so why should a baker have to make a cake for a couple that he personally doesn’t believe

The petitioners were two men whose same-sex partners had died and fourteen same-sex couples who all brought cases in their respective District Courts challenging either the denial of their right to marry or the right to have their marriage performed elsewhere recognized in their own state. The cases were heard in Michigan, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee, each of which defines marriage as between a woman and a man. In each case, the relevant District Court found in favor of the petitioner. Each of the respondents, who were state officials responsible

Phillips’ argued he would not sell a cake to the same-sex couple because it violated his freedom of religion and expression and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time. However, unlike other religious freedom cases, there was no clear infringement on religious freedom due to the fact that Phillips’ religion (Christianity) forbids same-sex couples from having relations, but does not directly forbid the endorsement of said relations (i.e. creating a cake for the ceremony).

Every single person in the United States have the right to express their religion of preference or no religion at all, however him or her wants without offending anybody, and the best way to protect religion’s liberty was by keeping the government out if it and creating this First Amendment freedom of religion, to separate the church from the state.

Jack Phillips, 59, a "cake artist" and self-claim born-again Christian who said his religion "is everything." And who owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado said that he won't design wedding cake for same-sex weddings because of his religious objections. He believe in what the Bible said about marriage, which only between a man and a woman, for him to violate that principle would be a rebel act against God. Nevertheless of his faith in Christianity principle and his right of religious freedom, Jack told USA TODAY's Richard Wolf in an interview that he is fighting an administrative court order that force him to make wedding cakes for the gay couples because of religious objections, Jack decided to stopped making wedding cakes altogether and his business suffering about forty percent in revenue loss.

While religious liberties does not protect people from other people’s religious beliefs, it still does not mean they get to be discriminated against. It also does not mean that people should be allowed to deny goods to people of different religions or deprive them of their rights. Religious liberties should stay in place the way the are in the government but, there should be a way that everyone is allowed to believe in whatever religion they would like to but no one is being discriminated against for believing in their own

‘In “Drawing a Line in the ‘Gay Wedding Cake case”, the author John Corvino says that Jack Phillips, the baker who refused to sell a wedding cake for a gay couple, was being discriminatory against the customers. He didn’t refuse to sell the cake because he just doesn’t support homosexuality but because he didn’t like the fact that a gay couple went to his bakery. Although Phillips claims his actions are protected by the first amendment of the Constitution, the truth is that he was violating the Constitution by discriminating customers based on their sexual orientation.

The article I found was from the Huffington Post and titled, “Indiana 's Memories Pizza Reportedly Becomes First Business To Reject Catering Gay Weddings.” I searched for article’s like these, because I have read other news stories of business refusing to sell a wedding dress to a couple, and a bakery refusing to bake a wedding cake for a couple. In the article I read, a family owned pizza place becomes the first business to reject to catering gay weddings. Apparently, no gay couples approached the business asking them to cater their wedding. The family wanted to let gay couples know in advanced they do not approve of their weddings, and therefore, refuse to cater any gay weddings. Consequently,