Religious Freedom And Freedom Of Speech In America

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

Freedom of speech is a fundamental human right. Whether or not on a college campus, people (especially college students) should have the right to speak freely. Everyone does have the right to speak freely, because it is one of the twenty-seven amendments. Colleges all around the United States are now home to many restrictions on free speech. For example, the idea and use of “free speech zones” has made its way to colleges everywhere. A “free speech zone” is a sidewalk sized place where students are allowed to speak their minds freely on college campuses. I know what you’re thinking. This sounds ridiculous. Why are there specific places for people to speak their minds? Aren’t colleges suppose to be a place where students speak their minds and learn new things? Universities should not be able to put any restrictions on free speech.

This paper will examine the first amendment’s right to free speech based on three different Supreme Court cases and how there are varying examples of free speech. In the case of Snyder v. Phelps, Snyder sued Phelps, the Westboro Baptist Church, for intentional infliction of emotional distress, invasion of privacy by intrusion upon seclusion, and conspiracy because the church set-up protest outside of his military son’s funeral service (Chen et al., 2010). Another side of free speech involves a case which allow schools to restrict speech that is promoting illegal drug use. To examine this view this paper will look at the case of Morse v. Frederick. Lastly, this paper will look into the case of Texas v. Johnson. At the end of a

The capability to speak openly and practice the religion of your choice has existed since the birth of the United States of America. Yet in the past decade, more people than ever have caused us to question which first amendment right should be protected more; freedom of speech or freedom of religion. Such events where the two rights are pinned against each other, both seeking to sense a feeling of supremacy, have proved to lead to conflict and even bloodshed.

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.

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

Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017), the Court will determine whether a baker can reject to provide a cake for a same-sex couple, despite Colorado’s law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jack Philips the owner of the cake shop has two arguments that the Free Exercise Clause grants “believers” a “freedom to live out their religious identity in the public square” and that Colorado is forcing him to create art that he finds morally wrong. Phillips’ attorney, Kristen Waggoner, argued that the government cannot compel speech by requiring people to create custom art in violation of their convictions. She was bound to get a hard hypothetical about a sincere baker turning down a cake for an interracial wedding, and Justice Kagan obliged. Waggoner responded that the Court has never upheld compelled speech in the race context, but that it might justify compelling speech in that context with a compelling interest. However, the argument that Phillips attorney is arguing does not draw a line between what is art and what is not. But although Justices Kagan and Breyer pushed Phillips’ attorneys on the cake’s expressive status, Justice Kennedy seemed likely to view many wedding-related artistic products as speech. Addressing Solicitor Francisco, Kennedy observed that “the problem for you is that so many of these wedding-related examples—and a photographer can be included—do involve

The baker did not give a rejection on the basis of the Charging party's sexual orientation but, on his own religious beliefs. He refused because, "creating cakes for same-sex marriages would go against his...belief...taught in the bible" (McIntyre). His refusal to not make the cake for the same-sex couple is backed by the "First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and free religion exercise" which "he says prohibit Colorado from compelling him to make cakes that violate his conscience" (S.M.). He does not only exclude same-sex couple wedding

In 1802, when Thomas Jefferson Was president, he wrote that the First Amendment's Freedom of religion. The First Amendment guarantees freedom of religion as "free activity’’ clause that allows people to worship as they please.

Religion, whether we like it or not, influences many of our decisions as humans even without us even knowing. Religion, for those who have grown up knowing it, or are believers in a religion, have been taught to act and respond in specific ways to scenarios of all types. Whereas those who are not affiliated religiously are influenced by decisions on matters of morality as well as law, which has basis in religion. The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is one surrounded by that of religiously based decisions and intentions from both religious Americans and non-religious Americans. The cases origin dates to 2012, previous to the 2015 Supreme Court ruling

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.

I think that the first amendment “Right to freedoms of religion and speech; right to assemble and to petition the government for redress of grievances” is important because whithout it, it will be impossible that the other ones would ever make sense and also gives you individual rights.

The Issue of Masterpiece Cakeshop V. Colorado Civil Rights all started because of a situation that should have been fun and exciting. Which is buying a wedding cake. David Mullins and his husband Charlie Craig went to Masterpiece Cakeshop to buy a cake for their wedding when

Abraham Lincoln once said, “America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.” I believe that America should be that one place that everyone feels comfortable and safe. America has lots of freedoms that let us do and think without having people tell us what to do. We are truly lucky to live in such an amazing country.

The First Amendments and its protections of speech, religion, press, and assembly are considered almost sacred rights by the American people, because it allows us to express ourselves freely without fear of being persecuted and punished for our opinions of the government. It allows for us to critique the problems in society and work towards creating change. Freedom of Speech is integral to our society and to our education system, as Universities are a place where students are constantly exposed to new and challenging ideas that make them reflect on their preconceived beliefs. Often, Universities will invite speakers and guests to the school for different events (sometimes purely for educational reasons, other times for recreational activities such as comedy) so that they can add to the diversity of thought present on campus.