Mullins V. Masterpiece Cakeshop Discriminatory

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

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 “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

When the government interferes with a fundamental right, the regulation or statute at issue must meet the strictest standard of scrutiny. In order to pass constitutional muster, the regulation or statute must be implemented for a “compelling government interest,” and must be narrowly tailored to achieve that interest. The regulations in each of the respective states prevent same-sex couples from marrying, or prevent recognition of legal, out-of-state marriages in their home

In the case of Jones v. Massachusetts, Michael Jones, an employee of the Sussex County, MA clerk’s office refused to issue a marriage liscense to a same sex couple based on his religious beliefs. His supervisor terminated him from his job, and issued the marriage liscense personally. Jones brought this termination to court as a violation of his first amendment right to religious freedom. The following is a compilation of the evidence and logic that supports not only that this claim is constitutionally valid, but that the precendents the court has set also approve this notion.

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.

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.

A group of gay couples sued their various relevant state agencies in the states of Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky and also in Tennessee. The lawsuits challenged the constitutionality of the bans perpetrated by the states on same-sex marriages or the states’ refusal for the recognition of such legal marriages that occurred within their jurisdictions. The plaintiffs in Obergefell v. Hodges argued that the statutes in their states violated the clause of equal protection. It also violated the clause of Due Protection of the fourteenth amendment. One of the plaintiffs brought an issue with the claims of civil rights. In all the circumstances, the trying courts found favour for the plaintiffs. However, the court of appeal for the 6th Circuit reversed the rulings and held that the ban on same-sex marriages by the states never violated the couples’ 14th amendment rights. The following article will, therefore, give a description and summary of the case Obergefell v. Hodges. It will give its current argument and later take a position so as to argue for one side of the case.

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

Director James Esseks of ACLU (American’s Civil Liberty Union), a civil liberties union in defense of same-sex marriages, states, “There’s a growing body of court decisions saying that while religion is central to what makes America America, religion can’t be used as an excuse to discriminate.” A similar incident occurred in a New Mexico court, where the owners of an Albuquerque wedding-photography company were sued for refusing to provide their service in a same-sex marriage. Another case occurred in Oregon, where the owner of “Sweetcakes by Melissa” was ordered to pay $135,000 to a same-sex couple “for emotional and mental suffering from” her refusal to bake and design their wedding

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

First, the request of a potentially exempted group must be a rational one, and even if most people might not agree with the viewpoint, they must be able to accept it. Second, the law must “impose unique and substantial burdens” on the potentially exempted class, because if there are not substantial burdens, the request for an exemption fails, and if the burdens are not unique, the class does not have any more of a justification for an exemption than any other group. Third, there needs to be a rational reason for most people to accept the law, because otherwise there is no point in exemptions, because the law as a whole should not exist. Finally, the proposed exemption must not incur significant additional costs on those who are not exempted, because if it does, the benefits for the exempted class are outweighed by the burdens inflicted on others. Under these criteria, Vallier argues that the Masterpiece Cakeshop should be exempted from serving gay couples. The first condition is fulfilled, because the request for the exemption is based in religious beliefs, which merit respect. The second condition is similarly fulfilled under the justification that the baker would otherwise be forced to ignore their religious beliefs. The third condition is also fulfilled, because it is quite reasonable to expect most bakers

Imagine being a homosexual United States citizen. Although life up until recently was difficult because of the constant discrimination, not being able to adopt children, strange looks when being with significant others, not being able to marry, and many more, the Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges solved one of those problems. The law changed in June 2015 when President Obama issued that same-sex marriage was legal. Although the gay pride assemblage was satisfied that one of their problems was solved, the homophobic, heterosexual caucus was far from satisfied and discriminated the LGBT community even more. Many Christian companies that provide goods and services for people refused to provide homosexual consumers with their products simply

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.

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