Marriage And Gay Marriage

The case Obergefell vs. Hodges reached the United States Supreme Court in 2015 (Oyez). This case dealt with the rights of same-sex marriages and became important case in our nation’s young history and in our society in general. The problem was groups of same-sex couples were being told that their marriage licenses were not being upheld to the same legal standards as those of heterogeneous couples. Therefore same-sex couples in Ohio, Tennessee , Kentucky, and Michigan went and sued these agencies in challenge of their constitutional rights (Oyez).They took their issue to court because they believed that the states were denying them their 14th amendment rights without due process. They couldn’t understand why their marriages license were not

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.

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

Businesses should have the liberty to publicly practice their religion without the hindrances from law and regulations. An article by Jacob Gershman and Tamara Audi in The Wall Street Journal, reports the case of a Denver-area baker, Jack Phillips, who was taken to appeals court on his rights to refuse service to a same-sex couple. A refusal that had no intentions of discriminating, but only to protect Phillips religious practices. In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins were in search for a cake to celebrate their planned wedding and found themselves at “Masterpiece Cakeshop” in Lakewood, Colorado. Phillips politely declined his service with the justification of religion, stating simply that the decoration of the cake would be a celebration

With such a relevant case to current times and a necessary one to define the future of interactions between businesses and citizens of all races and sexual orientations, clarification can only help the future of these types of interactions. The court will most likely respond with a 5-4 decision in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop. As with the conservative justices, most will likely support that of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and the newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Goursch would most likely choose to support the freedom of religion and the right to refuse service, most likely quoting Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, as they tend to stay on the conservative side of the argument. Whereas Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor would most likely stick with the argument that this is discrimination of gay Americans, most likely quoting Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith during the proceedings. Chief Justice John G. Roberts would most likely maintain that Masterpiece Cakeshop was not in the wrong. The real decision on whether or not Mr. Phillips was right in refusing to produce a wedding cake for the couple would come down to Anthony M. Kennedy. As Kennedy often takes the position of swing vote in the Supreme Court it is

On June 26, 2015 the Supreme Court ruled that marriage is a fundamental right. This historic ruling opened up a world of opportunities to America’s gay and lesbian communities, but there are still many organizations that resist this change in culture. There are some people in America who are morally against the practice of homosexual relations and they do not wish to support a life style that goes against their religious beliefs. These people invoke the First Amendment and desire to be exempt from serving the gay community. However, religious exemption cannot be extended to allow people to deny their fellow citizens their right to practice their own religions and their fundamental rights to life, liberty and property. We must be color blind

In 2012, gay couple Craig and Mullins, asked Masterpiece Cakeshop, located in Colorado, to make them a wedding cake. The Owner, Jack Phillips, denied them the cake, saying that it went against his religion, Christianity. In response the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, they filed discrimination based on sexual orientation, under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). This law prohibits businesses from discriminating against a person based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation. This resulted in the court case, Craig V. Masterpiece Cakeshop. In response to the case the Administrative Law Judge, wrote a response in support of Craig and Mullins.After hearing the facts, Colorado Civil Rights Commission sided with Craig and Mullins, saying that Phillips cannot deny service based on sexual orientation. As a result the cake shop was to make same- sex marriage wedding cakes, retrain their staff, and give quarterly reports.

The baker in the article "Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage", by Adam Liptak, stated that his religion compels him to refuse to do the service of making a wedding cake for the same-sex couple. This type of reasoning encourages discrimination based on sexual orientation. According to the article "What does the 'right to refuse service' really mean?" by Kristen Hubby, "...the right to refuse service is controversial yet protected under the law because the act of refusing someone service—and the consequence of being refused—pit constitutional rights against each other" (5). Because the things that are written in the Constitution can be very vague, the people will be loosely interpreting one's rights giving them the ability to

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 man named Jack Phillips refused to bake a cake for a gay couple because he is a Christian that believes marriage is between one man and one woman. Since he believes that baking the cake is the same as taking part in the wedding celebration, his religious beliefs compel him to refuse to bake cakes for gay couples (breitbart.com). In 2013, Robert Spencer, an administrative judge, ordered Phillips to bake the cake. Phillips refused (foxnews.com). He was extremely polite about his refusal, but still refused because of his faith. This is an example of civil disobedience. Sadly, religious freedom is a constitutional right that Phillips was denied. The ruling that he must serve a gay couple against his beliefs was going against the Constitution. The very first amendment to the Constitution is: "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." (constituionus.com) According to

‘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.

In July 2012 a same sex couple went to a local cake shop known as Masterpiece cakeshop. The couple (Charlie craig and David Mullins) requested a cake to be made for their upcoming wedding but were refused service based on the fact that they were a homosexual couple. The couple decided to press charges on the shop based on discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014. Following the attempted charges the division issued a notice of probable cause; Craig and mullins then filed a complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in violation of

On one side of the issue, one can find those who believe that businesses must be required by law to provide goods and services to LGBT people upon request. According to this paradigm, a bakery must provide a wedding cake to an interracial couple regardless of how much that business opposes interracial marriage. A fundamental part of this point of view is the argument from Civil Rights. In short, these laws that require businesses to serve all “ensure that people previously subject to discrimination can go about their day to day life, without worrying whether they will be turned away from a store because of who they are (ACLU Staff).” Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for businesses to refuse service to any individual on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex or national origin (History.com Staff).” In the case of Masterpiece v. Colorado, Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act bars public accommodations from denying service to individuals based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, and more (One Colorado). In

Richard Wolf’s article, “Baked in the cake: Legal battles follow gay marriage ruling,” focuses on Jack Phillips, a Colorado baker and owner of Masterpiece Cake-shop, who will not design desserts for same-sex couples. Phillips has discriminated against same-sex couples and has been hiding behind his religion to do so. However, “his claim that the First Amendment protects his freedom of expression, based on his religious beliefs, failed to convince the Colorado Civil Rights Commission” for the reason that Colorado is part of the 22 states that have a law excluding discrimination to same-sex couples (Wolf).

Individual liberties are at the heart of American values; at times these liberties may collide with one another on personal and interpersonal levels, as society and government wrestles to amplify them all. Consequently, when either a law is seemingly tailored to infringe upon your rights, or another individual has infringed upon your liberties, it is appropriate to seek judicial review. Such is the case with Vinny Winnfield and his partner Julian Vega, who in preparation for the final stages of their wedding, visited the Dios Es Bueno Bakery in hopes of ordering their wedding cake. Owner of the bakery, Christina Cortez, offered to bake them a cake for another occasion, but refused to do so for their wedding on the grounds of religious objection