David Mullins and Charlie Craig are gay men, who want to marry, and Craig’s mother, with an intention to order a cake for their wedding. They enter a master piece cake shop but, the shop owner Jack Willis declines the order since he believes making such a cake would be a sign of support of gay marriage which is contrary to his religion.
We can do it today.
The couple didn’t get an opportune time to talk through the type of cake they wished for, which they felt was denied. Philip views the cake as a form of art, and he declares that his cakes speak louder for him. Philip is indicated in his community faith and is extremely religious. He rejects making a cake for Mullins and Craig and claims it’s for similar reasons he says no Halloween and pornographic theme cakes. Though on the other hand, Philip considers wedding to be a holy religious ceremony and with an n exceptional meaning. Philips says he did not turn down service to the couple, his disagreement was about making a cake for the gay wedding, but states he had no issues selling them other things (Friedman, 2017).
Philip is taken to court by Craig and Mullins by violating the 14th amendment, which authorizes even protection to all persons, Philip contradicted their accusation with the 1st amendment of freedom of speech. The courts ruled in favor of the couple, till Philip presented the case to the supreme courts, which will decide whom the constitution supports. In the case of Colorado Civil Rights Commission versus Masterpiece Cake shop, in accordance to the constitutional protection of the 14th amendment defended by Texas v. Lawrence, Evans v. Romer, and Windsor v. US and cases, the Supreme Court should, therefore, a rule in favor of Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Dickinson, 2017).
The case ruling of Colorado Civil Rights Commission v. Masterpiece Cake shop will signify a compelling example of our nation. This case will be influenced greatly by the awaited Supreme Court verdict over a similar pending court case in St. Cloud, Minnesota. A clear line should be drawn between freedom of speech and discrimination if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the couple. Obliging the bakery not to draw a distinction in opposition to potential customers did not necessitate projection of and support message of same-sex marriages. Most people with religious integrations will be discontented and have issues on what it is really meant by freedom of speech and the far it can go to be obstructed.
In this case of Colorado Civil Rights Commission v. Masterpiece Cake shop, the supreme court should rule in favor of Colorado Civil Rights Commission, for the reason that it is legal to be part of a particular group of people as per the precedents set by the US v. Windsor, Romer v. Evans and Lawrence v. Texas with support of the 14th amendment. Persons who are homosexuals ought to be treated equally in all forms, in the eyes of the government as it is stated by US v. Windsor states (SCOTUSBlog, 2017). Sexual orientation is protected by the 14th amendment as Romer v. Evans proclaims. Fundamentally freedom of speech is not being put away with, it just evidently expounds on what speech is adjudged to be discrimination and what an adequate form of speech is.
- Dickinson, M. (December 21, 2017). Can You Have Your Cake and Free Speech Too? The Supreme Court and the Masterpiece Cakeshop Case. Presidential Power, 2017-12.
- Friedman, H. M. (June 26, 2017). Cert. Granted In Dispute Over Refusal To Create Cake For Same-Sex Wedding. Religion Clause, 2017-6.
- SCOTUSBlog, . (September 15, 2017). Symposium: Commercial products as speech – When a cake is just a cake. Scotusblog, 2017-9.