US Supreme Pizza Part II: Bake a Cake
Tomorrow the US Supreme Court will hear arguments regarding the Christian baker who refused to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Here's an excerpt from a Huffington post article regarding this that illustrates the two opposing sides of the issue:
The U.S. Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments on Tuesday in a case that could have huge ramifications for freedom of speech and protections against discrimination. But it all began with a same-sex couple who just wanted a special wedding cake.
In 2012, Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips pointed to his conservative Christian beliefs in refusing to make a custom wedding cake for Colorado couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins.
Phillips argues that when he designs his custom cakes, he is an artist and that he can’t be forced to use his artistic expression to send a message he finds religiously objectionable ― in this case, that any marriage other than one between a man and a woman should be celebrated. His lawyers say it is a matter of free speech.
The Trump administration has taken up the baker’s cause. “Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” the Justice Department wrote in an amicus brief filed in September.
But in refusing to make Craig and Mullins a custom cake, Phillips violated Colorado anti-discrimination law that prohibits businesses from denying services to people based on sexual orientation, among other factors. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled against him in May 2014.
Several court decisions later, the case has reached the Supreme Court ― with the scope of free speech and anti-discrimination protections on the line.
The implications of Phillips’ claim that he should be able to deny the couple services based on his free speech rights as a Christian are “staggering,” American Civil Liberties Union attorneys representing Craig and Mullins wrote in a brief filed last year.
“People hold religious beliefs about a wide variety of things, including racial and
religious segregation and the role of women in society,” the ACLU lawyers wrote. “If religious motivation exempted businesses from anti-discrimination laws, government would be powerless to protect all Americans from the harms of invidious discrimination.”
So there are two conflicting points of principles here, anti-discrimination, and the first amendment rights of freedom of expression and freedom of religion.
What are your thoughts on which way SCOTUS will rule, and how do you think they should rule on this case? Why do you feel this way?