The Owners Of Sweet Cakes

In 1960, the Oceana Supreme Court, in State v. Fenny, refused to the extend the 1803 statute to protect "homosexual marriage". This case is not applicable to Clark because the matter involves a homosexual act not a homosexual marriage.

For centuries same sex marriage has been a dispute, especially in Texas because of how powerfully Texas believes in the bible and how extremely “old fashioned” it is. The debate has been over LGBT equality, just like the black civil rights movement and the women’s movement in the 1960’s. Due to the traditional and common law, Texas does not allow same sex marriage. Actually, the state banned same sex marriage a decade ago or more. The issue was during the 2004 presidential election when Missouri and Louisiana voters approved same sex marriage and eleven states placed amendments. Everyone held their word and continued to protect the laws of Texas. The constitutional amendments that banned same sex marriage well-defined marriage as a union between

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

As it was in the past history, today’s denial of the freedom to marry is part of establishing a larger and oppressive social vision by the government that encompasses individual ideologies such as Biblical values. In 2004 Liberal senator Guy Barnett petitioned the

She upholds that her religion as an Apostolic Christian prevents her from supporting same-sex nuptials. “This is a heaven or hell issue for me and for every other Christian that believes,” she said. “This is a fight worth fighting.” (Starnes, 2015) Public-order advocates maintain the idea that an elected official has a duty to uphold to the law. Individual-rights advocates continue to support Davis, such as Liberty Counsel Attorney, Mat Staver, who said “if this country has come to this point where a judge jails someone like Kim Davis for their religious convictions – then we have lost our religious liberty.” (Starnes, 2015) The lack of tolerance for gay marriage has also been seen in Oregon where a bakery was sued for “emotional suffering” (The Guardian, 2015) because the bakery owner refused to make a cake for a gay couple. “This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal,” Oregon labor commissioner Brad Avakian said in the final order.” (The Guardian, 2015) Anna Harmon, one of the attorneys for the couple “said Avakian’s order is unconstitutional, because “the right to speak freely, to think uniquely, and to live according to our faith is the bedrock of this country.” (The Guardian,

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in June declaring a Constitutional right to same-sex marriage, Ms. Davis, due to her religious beliefs, has been refusing to issue marriage licenses to not only gay couples, but straight couples as well.

Hundreds of protestors are gathering outside of the courthouse either protesting or supporting a Christian woman’s beliefs and actions. Many hold up signs or scream louder than others to declare their personal point of view. Kim Davis is a county clerk in Ashland, Kentucky; has denied numerous marriage licenses for multiple same-sex and straight couples (Smith). This has become a very controversial issue for many and everyone has a different opinion as well. Kim Davis' trial is an influential trial by challenging many of the essential American principles such as morality or ethicality, upholding constitutional rights, and separation of church and state.

Now to put in perspective of religious beliefs, say there is a Christian engaged couple. One woman and one man. They come into a bakery and try to get a cake for their Christian wedding. Let’s say that the baker denies them service for their wedding because they are Christian, would they just walk out and be okay with the baker? No, they would go absolutely nuts and most likely be very angry. I personally do not believe it is acceptable to decimate based on race, sex, orientation or religion. “This bill will tear us apart”. ( youtube part 1

The act of limiting marriage, a beautiful and divine event that may happen only once in a lifetime by the government is totally wrong. Base on the 14th Amendment that I mentioned before, citizens cannot be limited by law to choose whether or not should they marry the person they love, it is immoral and ultimately unconstitutional. First, they were sentenced to jail because they violated the Racial Integrity Act of 1958 of Virginia which only allow same race marriage, then they were banished from Virginia for 25 years unless they want to stay in jail. I say that Virginia has gone too far in this case, not only they violated the Equal Protection with that Racial Integrity Act, they also stepped over due process of law.

Gambino, Lauren. "Texas Clerks Could Refuse to Issue Marriage Licenses to Same Sex Couples." The Guardian. 29 June 2015. Web. 5 Nov. 2015.

County Clerk Kim Davis, of Rowan County, Kentucky, is in a difficult situation because she refuses to issue marriage licenses to homosexual couples. Herbert W. Titus and William J. Olson have written an article about why they think she is doing the right thing not just religiously, but Constitutionally as well. They outline the reasons why the stand she is taking is her only option as a Christian and as an elected official of the United States.

Though I agree with her right to express it. I just don’t believe her personal prejudices should be brought into her work for the state government. I also agree with the court to telling her she must grant marriage licenses to same sex couples. While I agree private business has the right to decide since they are not being funded by tax payers’ money and people have the ability to find other options when a private business does not agree with their morals. But when it is a government official, the public has less options. Whether or not she agrees, she has to follow the

Kim Davis was elected from the people to do a job as the county clerk. And when of the people changed the constitution for same sex marriage this got in the way of her religious beliefs prevented her from caring out her duties. But at the same time in The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 in some people’s eyes she is just expressing one of her constitutional rights. If the constitution was written only based on Christian beliefs then we would be breaking other religious rights as well.

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

Judge Moore informed probate judges on the eve of the historical same-sex marriage decision that the federal ruling did not apply to them. Later on, in a separate ruling, it was ordered that the many of the counties that were holding back from marrying same-sex couples were to start issuing licenses to same-sex couples. Still Judge Moore says he stands firm in that while the court can authorize same-sex marriages but they cannot force a constitutional officer to disobey his oath by doing so (Elliott, 2015). Federal district judges held the law defining marriage as a union between a man and a woman unconstitutional (Eastman, 2015). However, the United States Supreme Court met and ratified Chief Justice Moore’s stance.