The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commision was heard by the US Supreme Court December 5, 2017 and will be decided in 2018. The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, is a christian man that designs cakes in the store. David Mullins and Charlie Craig are a same sex couple that went to Masterpiece Cakeshop with the intent of buying a wedding cake. David and Charlie asked to order a cake for their wedding, but Phillips told them that he would not make the wedding cake because it denied his religious beliefs. Phillips still offered to serve them, but he refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex marriage. Because they were not able to order a wedding cake from Phillips, David and Charlie sued. The Colorado Court
…show more content…
They all presented similar arguments that since the bakery is considered a place of public accommodation, Phillips legally could not deny them goods or services based on their sexual orientation because of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Finn also pointed out that Phillips is a Christian, and the Bible does not state that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are not allowed. Alayna Renwick and Alex Minnick were advocates for the Masterpiece Cakeshop. They stated that Phillips first amendment rights would be violated by baking a cake for Charlie and David, due to the fact that Phillips says that same-sex marriage is against his religious beliefs. Almost all the arguments presented by both sides were valid, but some had a stronger case than others. When Alayna stated that “people are entitled to their own religious beliefs as long as they don’t interfere with someone else's”, she went against her own side of the argument because Phillips did in fact interfere with the rights of Charlie and David when he refused to make a cake due to the nature of their …show more content…
Colorado Civil Rights Commission, I am ruling in favor of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Both sides presented very good arguments, and for the majority of the case, I struggled to make a decision. In the end, my final decision was made based on what the effects of allowing Phillips to abuse this law would be. If Phillips were allowed to discriminate based on his religious beliefs, it would make it possible for more people to do so, to the point where the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act would be rendered useless. Both sides had their rights violated, but initially it was only Charlie and David that did. When the court ruled that Phillips had to bake a cake for Charlie and David, he did have his First Amendment rights violated. In the future, the court should consider a different ruling, such as a fine and allow people to run their business in a way that doesn’t violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, rather than forcing him to provide the service. My decision would support the reasoning that people can have their own beliefs under the First Amendment, as long as they do not violate the rights of another. My decision would not force Jack Phillips to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples unless he is making them for heterosexual couples; he has the decision to make wedding cakes for everyone, or for no one. This ruling supports that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act are
They all presented similar arguments that since the bakery is considered a place of public accommodation, Phillips legally could not deny them goods or services based on their sexual orientation because of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Finn also pointed out that Phillips is a Christian, and the Bible does not state that homosexuality and same-sex marriage are not allowed. Alayna Renwick and Alex Minnick were advocates for the Masterpiece Cakeshop. They stated that Phillips first amendment rights would be violated by baking a cake for Charlie and David, due to the fact that Phillips says that same-sex marriage is against his religious beliefs. Almost all the arguments presented by both sides were valid, but some had a stronger case than others. When Alayna stated that “people are entitled to their own religious beliefs as long as they don’t interfere with someone else's”, she went against her own side of the argument because Phillips did in fact interfere with the rights of Charlie and David when he refused to make a cake due to the nature of their …show more content…
Colorado Civil Rights Commission, I am ruling in favor of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Both sides presented very good arguments, and for the majority of the case, I struggled to make a decision. In the end, my final decision was made based on what the effects of allowing Phillips to abuse this law would be. If Phillips were allowed to discriminate based on his religious beliefs, it would make it possible for more people to do so, to the point where the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act would be rendered useless. Both sides had their rights violated, but initially it was only Charlie and David that did. When the court ruled that Phillips had to bake a cake for Charlie and David, he did have his First Amendment rights violated. In the future, the court should consider a different ruling, such as a fine and allow people to run their business in a way that doesn’t violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, rather than forcing him to provide the service. My decision would support the reasoning that people can have their own beliefs under the First Amendment, as long as they do not violate the rights of another. My decision would not force Jack Phillips to make wedding cakes for same-sex couples unless he is making them for heterosexual couples; he has the decision to make wedding cakes for everyone, or for no one. This ruling supports that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act are