Masterpiece Cakesham Case

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.

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

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.

Relating to a recent case called Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow (2004). (“Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow.” July 2008, www.oyez.org/cases/2003/02-1624”) This case is still a controversial topic today. Michael Newdow petitioned the Pledge of Allegiance, claiming that the fragment stating “under God” is a violation to his first amendment right. His petition reached thousands of followers and eventually was received at the Supreme Court. The court disagreed with his case and labeled it constitutional. The reasoning behind the final ruling decision was that Mr.Newdow’s daughter has no obligation to participate in the pledge if she does not wish to. An even more recent case was McCullen v. Coakley (2014) which is based on another controversial topic that divides the nation, abortion. (“McCullen v Coakley.” {{meta.SiteName}}, www.oyez.org/cases/2013/12-1168.) This case took place in Massachusetts at a Planned Parenthood center. The state created a law that prevents pro-lifers from protesting about 20 feet from the facility, as there was obviously commotion from the protestors. The Supreme Court named the state law constitutional and defended the decision. Stating how the problem was the location of the protest and not the actual speech

During the 1970s the court reviewed the constitutionality of compelled exemptions for religiously motivated conduct (1673). In Wisconsin v. Yoder the Court held that there was an important state interest in universal education but the law to compel students to go to school infringed on the free exercised rights. Chief Justice Burger, “lauded the virtues of the Amish and their social practices. In Employment Division v. Smith, the Court held that the use of peyote for religious purposes does not protect the persons from a denial of unemployment benefits. Justice Scalia stated, “We have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate” (1676).

In Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. the Supreme Court of the United States “must decide in these cases whether [RFRA] permits [HHS] to demand that three closely held corporations provide health insurance coverage for methods of contraception that violate the sincerely held religious beliefs of the companies’ owners” (1). In outlining the issues for the decision, the Court must first decide whether or not corporations can sue under RFRA then employ the Sherbet test as was reinstated through RFRA to determine whether or not there exists a substantial burden on the free exercise of religion as established in the 1st amendment, and whether or not the interests of the government outweigh such a burden. While the question of a slippery slope is not directly raised by the lawsuit, both the majority and the dissent consider it to determine the effects of the decisions being made. In response to the first question of corporate personhood, the majority argues that because “a corporation is simply a form of organization used by human beings” that “allowing [the companies] to assert RFRA claims protects the religious liberty of the [owners]” (7-8). The dissent, disagreed, believing that allowing corporations to sue under RFRA creates the potential for large corporations to seek exemption from many more laws while citing immeasurable religious beliefs. Although both opinions agreed that providing the contested contraceptives is a compelling government interest, the majority believes

The ability for religious people to exercise their religion in opinion and practice has been a sacred right held up since the beginning of the United States. What happens when one’s religious practices conflicts with public values? This question was integral to the Supreme Court and its rulings in the cases of Bob Jones University v. United States and Church of the Lukumi Babalu v. City of Hialeah. In Bob Jones, the university’s tax exempt status was revoked because the university’s religious beliefs were contrary to the public values of racial equality. In Lukumi Babalu, the religious beliefs of the Santeria Church in Florida about animal sacrifices were in conflict with the public values of the community. Bob Jones University lost their religious

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 Burwell v. Hobby Lobby ruling essentially ensures that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 applies to closely-held corporations; in this case, the corporation in question is owned and operated by a single family. (The RFRA was an act passed by Congress in 1993 to protect religious values (244); however, due to it being a direct alteration of the First Amendment (197), the Supreme Court decided to partially remove the RFRA, keeping federal rights of protection.) The owners of Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. argued that the contraceptive mandate of the Affordable Care Act “imposes a substantial burden on religious exercise”, which is in direct contradiction with the RFRA; their defiance of the ACA would have netted them as much as half a billion dollars per year in fines and penalties.

There have been many cases over the years regarding people objecting to things based on their religious beliefs. By doing so, these people are sometimes in violation of federal or state laws that protect people’s rights and prevent discrimination. An example of this is when Bob Smith refused to rent out his banquet hall to Adam and Steve, a gay couple who wanted to get married there. Bob, a California resident, refused to rent out the banquet hall because Adam and Steve’s gay wedding went against his religious beliefs and he found their lifestyle to be immoral and ungodly. This case brings up several legal, moral and philosophical issues that will be discussed in the following paragraphs.

While there are specificities of the case that can help determine the individualized outcome of this particular case, the foundations of the legal problems in the case can be expanded to greater problems of religious definition in the United States. As shown through The Impossibility of Religious Freedom, religious theory is vital to the continuation of religious freedom protections, for better or worse, in the United States. The case that is highlighted by Sullivan revolves around the ability for citizens to use religious items around burial sites that extend beyond the city of Boca Raton’s regulatory codes. When some of these religious items around the burial sites were not permitted by the city, a group of citizens sued the city on the grounds that the city was preventing actions protected by the religious freedom clauses of the US Constitution. This case, like many others involving religious freedom decisions, required a real definition of religion. Religious theory was imperative to the outcome of this case. Sullivan writes, “If religion was whatever anyone said it was, the statute was unworkable and [Judge Ryskamp] did not feel it was his place to simply dismiss an act of the Florida legislature as nonsense. Religion therefore had to be measured and bounded by an expert test…”(Sullivan 105). These tests were determined by various religious scholars, including Sullivan, that testified in this case. Religious theory,

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 Rosenberger v. University of Virginia is a supreme court case dealing with whether a public university has the right to appropriate money towards religious publications within the university. A group at the University of Virginia, Wide Awake, wanted to print a magazine that gave a magazine representing Christian viewpoints asked for nearly $6,000 for printing purposes. The University declined to pay for the magazine because the magazine "promotes or manifests a particular belief in or about a deity or an ultimate reality”. In this statement by the university, the university claims that funding the publication of this magazine would violate the establishment clause of the first amendment.

Hobby Lobby’s ruling was the fact that the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) was used in justification despite being declared unconstitutional as it applied to the states by the Supreme Court prior to the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case. The RFRA, in short, stated that “[the] government shall not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability.” The Burwell v. Hobby Lobby case was declared to be a federal government issue and an issue of a person’s exercise of religion as, according to Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. in the Supreme Court’s majority opinion, corporations are citizens. Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg argued this claim in her dissent, citing that this decision had already been made in Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith. This case determined that there is no violation of freedom of religion when an infringement is merely a result of a valid statute—Justice Ginsburg argued that the same concept was present in this

There are several controversial issues argued concerning the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017). The allegation began in 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Philips cake store, Masterpiece Cakeshop, to order a cake for their weeding. Yet, Philip denied on making them a same-sex marriage cake on the grounds of his religious believes. Appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court, Philips argues that his first Amendment Rights to free speech and religious exercise are violated by the Colorado’s anti-discrimination law. The state of Colorado on the other hand, argues that their law does not target his constitutionally protected speech and religious rights, but simply his conduct. However, the Colorado Civil