Icing on the Cake
I am sure most of you have heard about the Supreme Court case involving a man's refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in Colorado. Fox News adds that this disagreement began in 2012, so it has been six years coming. This case, Masterpiece Cakeshop vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission, is just one of many ongoing debates regarding the issue of gay rights and religious practices/any type of opinion against same sex marriage.
The legislative issues behind this case is the debate between first amendment rights and discrimination. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, claims that according to his first amendment rights he is legally allowed to refuse service because making cakes are a version of self expression/art. So Jack is saying that the state of Colorado forcing him to make this cake is an infringement of his right to free speech and free expression of religion. In his official statement on Alliance Defending Freedom, he says "Though I serve everyone who comes into my shop, like many other creative professionals, I don't create custom designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience. I don't create cakes that celebrate Halloween, promote sexual or anti-American themes, or disparage people, including individuals who identify was LGBT. For me, it's never about the person making the request. It's about the message the person wants the cake to communicate." He emphasizes numerous times that he 'respectfully declined' the opportunity to make the cake just because of his own beliefs and practices.
However, David Mullins and Charlie Craig have very different opinions on the top. Mullins and Craig were the couple that entered the shop in 2012 to request a cake in order to celebrate with their family that lived in Colorado; even though they got married in Massachusetts. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, when their request was refused due to their sexual orientation, they filed a complaint with the state of Colorado because of its established state law that prohibits public businesses to refuse service due to race, religion or sexual orientation. After review, the state of Colorado claimed that Masterpiece Cakeshop did illegally discriminate against Mullins and Craig. However, Masterpiece Cakeshop did not feel this was accurate so Phillips filed for a hearing with the United States Supreme Court. A decision will hopefully be made later this spring.
It is clear that this case isn't just about a cake. It about whether the first amendment should be upheld in cases of discrimination against others. The case is an extremely important milestone in America and will set the bar for later disputes when it comes to sexual orientation and possibly race. If Phillips is found guilty of discrimination, it would support the LGBT community so they would not have to be afraid or hesitant to express their sexuality in ways that are expressions of art. But if they rule that Jack Phillips was only exercising his first amendment right, this could open the door for many public businesses to refuse service to people of differing sexual orientations, race and/or religions.
There has been a similar dispute but instead of a cake, the problem involves t-shirts. Again in the year 2012, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization requested to have Hands-On Originals make custom t-shirts for the Pride Parade in Lexington, Kentucky. This case was brought to the Kentucky Supreme Court after so many years because the dispute has still not been handled.
Similar to Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the owner of the company, Blaine Adamson, said that he refused service because he believed that it went "against his belief system." (Courier Journal) He included that he has also refused service to someone who requested a black t-shirt with white writing that said "Homosexuality is a sin." He explained that he refused to make those t-shirts because "Jesus would have balanced grace and truth." The Lexington Human Rights Commission originally ruled that it was a violation of the anti-discrimination law in Kentucky but the Hands-on Original company took it to the state's Supreme Court to further debate the case. Phillips and Adamson both want to stay true to their religious beliefs but at the expense of someone else's beliefs on sexual orientation.
These cases will be the forefront to further situations involving first amendment rights and discrimination. The final verdicts will either set the LGTBQ community back in their fight towards equality or prove that the American legislation does support their community and their rights.
 |
| From the Daily Signal |
The legislative issues behind this case is the debate between first amendment rights and discrimination. Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, claims that according to his first amendment rights he is legally allowed to refuse service because making cakes are a version of self expression/art. So Jack is saying that the state of Colorado forcing him to make this cake is an infringement of his right to free speech and free expression of religion. In his official statement on Alliance Defending Freedom, he says "Though I serve everyone who comes into my shop, like many other creative professionals, I don't create custom designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience. I don't create cakes that celebrate Halloween, promote sexual or anti-American themes, or disparage people, including individuals who identify was LGBT. For me, it's never about the person making the request. It's about the message the person wants the cake to communicate." He emphasizes numerous times that he 'respectfully declined' the opportunity to make the cake just because of his own beliefs and practices.
 |
| From the Denver Post |
It is clear that this case isn't just about a cake. It about whether the first amendment should be upheld in cases of discrimination against others. The case is an extremely important milestone in America and will set the bar for later disputes when it comes to sexual orientation and possibly race. If Phillips is found guilty of discrimination, it would support the LGBT community so they would not have to be afraid or hesitant to express their sexuality in ways that are expressions of art. But if they rule that Jack Phillips was only exercising his first amendment right, this could open the door for many public businesses to refuse service to people of differing sexual orientations, race and/or religions.
There has been a similar dispute but instead of a cake, the problem involves t-shirts. Again in the year 2012, the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization requested to have Hands-On Originals make custom t-shirts for the Pride Parade in Lexington, Kentucky. This case was brought to the Kentucky Supreme Court after so many years because the dispute has still not been handled.
 |
| From the Christian News Network |
Similar to Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the owner of the company, Blaine Adamson, said that he refused service because he believed that it went "against his belief system." (Courier Journal) He included that he has also refused service to someone who requested a black t-shirt with white writing that said "Homosexuality is a sin." He explained that he refused to make those t-shirts because "Jesus would have balanced grace and truth." The Lexington Human Rights Commission originally ruled that it was a violation of the anti-discrimination law in Kentucky but the Hands-on Original company took it to the state's Supreme Court to further debate the case. Phillips and Adamson both want to stay true to their religious beliefs but at the expense of someone else's beliefs on sexual orientation.
These cases will be the forefront to further situations involving first amendment rights and discrimination. The final verdicts will either set the LGTBQ community back in their fight towards equality or prove that the American legislation does support their community and their rights.
This was very shocking to me. Yes, people do have the right to believe in what they want to believe in. However, it is 2018, and I think that people should be more accepting of other peoples' ways and beliefs, as well. I personally think that it is sad these kind of issues are still going on. Nevertheless, I can also see how these events are necessary for change to be brought forth in the future. With time, I hope to believe people become more accepting.
ReplyDeleteMcKenzie, I agree that these cases will set the tone for the course of history. Either way, there are benefits and drawbacks. If the court rules in favor of the gay couple or the Gay and Lesbian Services Organization, there would be no question on whether businesses have to serve same-sex couples or not. However, this may restrict that freedom of creative professionals to express their creativity. I think it would be hard to make a creative piece if you did not believe in it. If the court rules in favor of the businesses, it may set a standard that would allow businesses to discriminate against the LGTBQ community and other minorities.
ReplyDeleteI always found this topic pretty interesting because there really isn't a simple or clear solution. However, I thought that the Supreme Court had already made a ruling on the cake issue. I'm really confused but I'm glad I read this blog so that I wasn't walking around with incorrect ideas! It'll be interesting to see the ruling because of how long this issue has been going on. My inclination is to favor the customers since it is a business, but I'm unsure how a business relates to first amendment rights. I also had no idea that aside from the cake issue, there was also a shirt issue. It shows that this isn't just a single, isolated incident but rather a continuous problem that needs to be addressed.
ReplyDeleteHi McKenzie! I did not realize that this case was going to the Supreme Court, and I am glad it is. The time has come for there to be a verdict because this case will, like you said, set the precedent for other cases in the future. I personally believe that no one should be discriminated for things like gender, race, and sexual orientation. It is 2018 and enough is enough. With all the powerful movements going on, there is one common theme; everyone deserves respect. Just because a person believes he shouldn't have to serve "disparage" people, doesn't mean that should remain how it is. We need to move forward, not backwards. Great Post!
ReplyDeleteI remember first hearing about this case last year when the Supreme Court first announced they would hear the case. It's hard to believe it's been about 7 years since the initial incident. This case will definitely, like you said, set the precedent for many cases to come. It's not a clear-cut answer and I feel like no matter what stance the Supreme Court takes there will be backlash whether it be on the basis of discrimination towards sexual orientation or violation of First Amendment rights with regards to art. It will be interesting to see what sort of consensus they reach about it. I had no idea that a similar issue had happened with shirts as well. It makes me wonder though just how many times a situation like this has happened.
ReplyDeleteI remember being disgusted when I heard about this story. Even though I am not a part of the LGBTQ community many of my close friends are so these stories always hit very close to home. Now two of my best friends who I have known for years are dating now and couldn't be happier. I love to see them show each other affection in public and ignoring the judgmental glances from small minded people. What I might suggest you write about in your next blog is maybe about how Sex Ed classes in America only talk about what happens when two straight people become intimate which leaves those who are homosexual to fend for themselves. One on my gay friends didn't know that she could transmit diseases from having sex with girls, she had no idea what a Dental Dam was (basically a condom for girls).
ReplyDeleteThis issue brings up a conundrum our society often faces between being fair and treating everyone as equals, and freedom of speech. I personally feel that we should simply be accepting of others, especially as a business owner where your job is simply to provide these customers a service. But, it will be interesting to see the Supreme Court’s ruling on this issue as it will certainly set a precedence for the extent of free speech in regards to the LGBTQ community.
ReplyDeleteI have always believed that the first amendment should be limited to this rule: if you don’t have anything nice to say, then don’t say it at all. Sure, you have freedom of speech, but there’s a line drawn when that freedom is abused. If you tell everyone you’re going to assaasinate the President, that’s not freedom of speech, that’s jail! If we are expressing and speaking in a way that hurts others we have to tell them that’s not ok. We are a country of freedom AND inclusivity, which means everyone gets the same rights and freedoms, despite their differences. You don’t have to like them, but you got to respect them.
ReplyDeleteThis is a topic that hits very close to home for me in the essence of faith-based choices. At my church in my hometown, there was a vote for whether or not our congregation would allow our pastors to join members of the LGTBQ community in holy matrimony. While a slight majority was in favor, our pastors were not particularly comfortable with the vote.
ReplyDeleteWhile I understand that as a business, it does not seem to be fair to decline a request for a custom cake or t-shirt or what not because of an individual's sexual orientation. What I would love to know, though, is what kind of design these individuals were requesting. If I were placed in a situation where I would be forced to distribute a piece of my own work that completely defied or violated my personal beliefs, I would probably quit my job. Let's take a look at the cake design closer, though. If the cake design requested was simply to say, "Congratulations David and Charlie!" I would have no issue making this cake because this cake is simply a celebratory gift or symbol of celebration. If the cake were to say something that casted a negative light on any particular group of people, then the answer to the cake request would be a solid "no."
These situations are very sticky because of the many different interpretations of what constitutes a violation/defiance of personal beliefs. I can only hope that the future will bring a time where gray areas are easily resolved because of the human orientation we all possess.