The Pros And Cons Of Gay Marriage

Phillips’ argued he would not sell a cake to the same-sex couple because it violated his freedom of religion and expression and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time. However, unlike other religious freedom cases, there was no clear infringement on religious freedom due to the fact that Phillips’ religion (Christianity) forbids same-sex couples from having relations, but does not directly forbid the endorsement of said relations (i.e. creating a cake for the ceremony).

‘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.

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).

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullens were denied a wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop due to the owner’s, Jack C. Phillips, religious beliefs. Phillips reasons were that his baking was meant to be art unto God and that creating a cake for a same-sex couple would displease God, which he reinforced with the fact that Colorado had not legalized same-sex marriage. The couple then filed charges with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act: this legislation prohibits any public accommodation from denying any person services based on gender, sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. The court had ruled in favor of the couple and ordered Phillips to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company

In “ Drawing a Line in the ‘Gay Wedding Cake’ Case” by John Corvino discusses the dispute between the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop and Charlie Craig and his fiancé David Mullins. Craig and his fiancé were awfully discriminated by the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop as he refused to make a cake for the couple's wedding. He refused due to his religious beliefs and claims he was not discriminating based on sexual orientation as he offered to sell them items like a birthday cake or cookies.

In June of 2015, the Supreme Court ruled same-sex marriage legal in the United States. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, “No union is more profound than marriage, for it embodies the highest ideals of love, fidelity, devotion, sacrifice, and family.” When the justice system was split and indecisive, Kennedy was the deciding vote for the controversial matter. In 1998, approximately ten percent of Americans believed [in legalizing] same-sex marriage, [as of] 2016, fifty-five percent [of the United States is accepting of the matter]. (Gale, para 1) However, there are thirteen remaining states in the U.S. which have made constitutional or statutory provisions prohibiting same-sex marriage, and many states suggesting the decision be up to each state rather than the federal government. According to the Pew Research Center, 2015 was a record high for supporters of gay marriage, with fifty percent supporting the affair and thirty-nine percent opposing. Marriage is a moral and legal entitlement to any citizen, even same-sex couples, since marriage is a civil right, brings financial gain to federal, state, and local governments, and bestows worldwide unity.

UCLA, found in the first five years gay marriage was allowed in Massachusetts in 2004, wedding expenditures added $111 million to the states economy (Gay). The Congressional Budget Office estimated in 2004 that if federal recognized gay marriage, it would cut the budget deficit by around $450 million per year.

Over late years homosexuality has turned out to be increasingly acknowledged and coordinated into the present society. In any case, with regards to gay people building up families, an issue is postured. In many states, gay people can embrace children like some other wedded or single grown-up. There are numerous contentions to this dubious theme; a few people trust that it ought to be lawful broadly, while others would incline toward that is was prohibited all over the place, or if nothing else in their individual states. There are consistent motivations to permit gays to receive children, however for a few, these reasons are insufficient. The main issue really is, “What is in the best interest of the child? This type of problem isn’t really one with causes, effects, and solutions” (Stone 2006). Allowing same sex couples to adopt is disadvantageous because it confuses children about gender roles, makes them prone to prone to bullying and increases the likelihood of children developing behavioral problems.

Despite being members of the LGBTQ community, the concerns of transsexuals remains different than the concerns of homosexuals. Author Kate Bornstein believes lesbians and gays are fortunate to have a community where each member can relate to each other, but “the transgendered experience is different” (Bornstein 67). Homosexuality and heterosexuality remains on a system where people are assigned a gender at birth and live with this specific gender while seeking others based on their partners’ genders. Are homosexuals still attack in public for their preferences? Absolutely. They are able, however, to form groups based similar backgrounds and desires to another member. As a straight female, I was born comfortable with societal expectations of my assigned gender, although I can see how others may be uncomfortable with theirs. I act feminine when I feel like it and sometimes I practice some masculine habits. I seek partners that I feel are masculine and aligned with my definition of a male. In the end, I go to my bed at night believing a match all the imaginary criteria of being a female. I do this despite never stopping to think if I have proof that what I believe is the definition of a female really the definition of a female. In this sense, how is a cis lesbian different from me? She was assigned a female gender and she lived with that gender. She can debate with me how she practice her gender roles and who her lovers are to her, but it is a similar story. If she dress

Gay men are more likely to die of HIV than straight people. There has been research that shows that gay couples, if are sexually active, have a high rate of HIV infection among gay men and there is also an increased likelihood of transmitting and STI (225-226 Zach Wahls).

What if someone refused to provide services to someone’s wedding? What if the business refused someone’s request, not because of a shortage of supplies, but because they don’t want to affiliate with someone’s wedding in any way due to their religious beliefs? More and more cases have occurred when a business refused to provide a cake or flowers to a same-sex couple’s wedding. It is not O.K. to refuse to serve same-sex couples based on one’s religious beliefs because businesses have a responsibility to serve everyone, anti-discrimination laws are not a violation of a person's First Amendment rights as some may argue, and refusing gays for religious reasons is a form of discrimination.

Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee may have to change their views on gay marriage after this supreme court case. On April 28, 2015 a supreme court case was issued by Obergefell v. Hodges. This case stated that gay marriage should be allowed in the following states, Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. These individuals are fourteen same sex couples and two men whose same-sex partners are deceased. They filed suits in Federal District Courts in their home States. These same sex couples argue that state officials violate the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed. The Fourteenth Amendment states that everyone has the right to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” The Fourteenth Amendment requires the States to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State.

It is hard to say whether we still live in a heteronormative world as there are good arguments for both sides. In my opinion, I think that most people still believe that heterosexuality is the norm, but I also believe that most people no longer think of homosexuality as something negative. While homosexuality is not the standard sexuality, it is becoming more accepted because it is now more common for gay people, bisexuals, and transgenders to make others aware of their sexual orientation and tell their stories.

Is homosexuality a form or cause of disability? This is the central issue posed by Spitzer in his now widely accepted definition of mental disorder. Spitzer (1984) argues that it is not. If we assume that homosexuality is an impairment simply because it is not heterosexuality, then we have created a privileged position for heterosexuality; we are making a value judgment, not a factual judgment. Homosexual activists would argue that heterosexuality is not a defining criterion of sexual function; homosexuals are able to, and regularly do, engage in relationships that are as equally loving and sexually satisfying as heterosexuals. Spitzer further acknowledges that although homosexuals are decidedly disadvantaged in contemporary culture, this is due largely to the reactions that society offers to homosexuality. The point, then, is that the disability associated with homosexuality is the fault of society and not an issue created by the individual homosexual. A useful comparison, perhaps, is handedness; although left-handedness has been associated with earlier mortality (Aggleton, Kentridge, and Neave, 1993) and increased risk of mental disorders (Johnston, Nicholls, Shah, and Shields, 2009), one would be hard-pressed to find someone willing to argue that left-handed people are mentally ill. Left-handedness represents a deviation from the norm that is both non-distressing and non-disabling, much like homosexuality, but is not considered a form of stigmatized deviance.

On June 26th, 2015, the Supreme Court established, in Obergefell v. Hodges, that no law in the United States could bar a same-sex couple from getting married. The court decided that the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitutions Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses guaranteed marriage as a right for same-sex couples. The First Amendment protects the freedom of religion in the United States and has been used widely to protect the actions and beliefs of religious individuals in discriminating against LGBTQIA+ individuals. In the United States, there are a plethora of religions some of whom reject same-sex marriage as part of their sincerely held religious beliefs. One such group is the Southern Baptist Convention, who after Obergefell v. Hodges, reaffirmed their beliefs that same-sex marriage violates their religious principles. In August of 2015, the Windsor family, owners of a cake shop and members of the Southern Baptist Convention church, denied a same-sex couple a wedding cake due to their personal religious beliefs. The couple brought a suit against the cake shop claiming that they were being discriminated against because of their sexual orientation which could violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause. In this essay, I will argue that the Windsors are not justified under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment in discriminating against the same-sex couple and that there is no form of democratic deliberation