Baker's Refusal: Gay Wedding Cake Controversy

won

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The owner, Jack Phillips, refused to provide a cake for a same-sex couple, citing his religious beliefs. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favour, stating that Phillips had illegally discriminated against them. Phillips then appealed to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in his favour in 2018, citing freedom of expression and religious beliefs. The case sparked a nationwide dialogue about the balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, with ongoing legal debates and similar cases continuing to arise.

Characteristics Values
Location Lakewood, Colorado
Bakery Name Masterpiece Cakeshop
Bakery Owner Jack Phillips
Couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig
Reason for Refusal Religious beliefs
Court Case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Court Decision Ruled in favor of bakery owner
Court Rationale Freedom of expression and religious beliefs
Anti-Discrimination Law Colorado state law
Impact Lost 40% of business

shunbridal

A Colorado baker loses appeal over refusal to make a gender transition cake

Colorado Baker Loses Appeal Over Refusal to Make a Gender Transition Cake

A Colorado baker who previously won a U.S. Supreme Court case over his refusal to make a wedding cake for a gay couple has lost his appeal in a separate case. The baker, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, violated the state's anti-discrimination law by refusing to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The case was brought by a transgender woman, Autumn Scardina, who in 2017 requested a cake with blue frosting on the outside and pink frosting inside to celebrate her gender transition. Phillips denied her request, testifying that he did not think someone could change genders and that he would not celebrate someone who thought they could.

Scardina sued Phillips, arguing that he had violated her rights under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The case was heard by the Colorado Court of Appeals, which agreed with a trial judge that Phillips had discriminated against Scardina based on her identity as a transgender woman. The court rejected Phillips' argument that making the cake would violate his free speech rights under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, stating that the requested cake did not convey any inherent message or symbolism that would violate his rights. Phillips was fined $500 for the violation.

Phillips' lawyers have vowed to appeal the decision, arguing that no one should be forced to express a message that violates their core beliefs. Scardina's lawyers celebrated the ruling as a victory for the LGBTQ community and for all Coloradans, affirming that the state's laws apply equally to everyone. The case highlights the ongoing debate between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, with Phillips citing his Christian beliefs as the reason for his refusal to make the cake.

This case is similar to another incident involving Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012, when Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, citing his religious beliefs. That case went to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Phillips' favor, finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown hostility toward his Christian beliefs. However, the Supreme Court did not address the broader principle of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay people, leaving that question for future cases.

shunbridal

Supreme Court rules in favour of baker who refused to make gay wedding cake

In a highly publicised case, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of a baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, centred around the refusal of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to design a custom wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple.

The couple, who planned to marry in Massachusetts and then celebrate in their home state of Colorado, visited the bakery in July 2012. Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, a Christian, declined their request, citing his religious beliefs. Craig and Mullins promptly left the bakery and filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. This law prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against customers based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

The case eventually made its way to the US Supreme Court, which ruled 7-2 in favour of Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop. The Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not remain religiously neutral when evaluating the case, thus violating Phillips' rights to free exercise of religion under the First Amendment. The Court's decision focused narrowly on the handling of Phillips' case and did not address the broader principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay customers.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, acknowledged that while a baker's right to the free exercise of religion may be limited by generally applicable laws, a state decision exhibiting religious hostility violates the state's obligation of religious neutrality. Kennedy noted that the Commission had shown hostility towards Phillips' religious beliefs, comparing them to defence of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy emphasised that such comparisons were inappropriate for a Commission charged with enforcing anti-discrimination law.

The decision left open the question of whether anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs in future cases, stating that future disputes "must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market."

Reactions to the Ruling

The ruling sparked a range of reactions from various groups and individuals. Chad Griffin, president of the Human Rights Campaign, America's largest LGBT civil rights organisation, noted the limited scope of the ruling, stating that it acknowledged LGBT people's right to live free from discrimination. Tom Perez, chair of the Democratic National Committee, emphasised that the case was about all people's right to celebrate their love without facing discrimination.

On the other hand, the American Principles Project, a conservative think tank, welcomed the decision as a victory for religious freedom and a condemnation of institutional anti-Christian bigotry. The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian legal group representing Phillips, supported the Court's finding of religious hostility by the Commission, stating that tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential.

Craig and Mullins, the couple at the centre of the case, expressed their disappointment but remained hopeful that their efforts had started a nationwide dialogue. They emphasised that their case was not the end of the process, and they would continue fighting to ensure that no one else experiences discrimination.

shunbridal

Gay couple's experience of feeling mortified and degraded

The experience of feeling mortified and degraded is something that gay couples, unfortunately, have to go through when businesses refuse to serve them. In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, David Mullins and Charlie Craig were left in tears after being refused a wedding cake by the owner, Jack Phillips, due to his religious beliefs. They described their experience as "mortifying", "degrading", "offensive", and "dehumanizing".

Mullins and Craig were not the only ones to experience such treatment. In a separate incident, Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman, was also refused service by Phillips and his bakery. Scardina had requested a pink cake with blue frosting to celebrate her gender transition, but was denied, despite there being no explicit message or imagery on the cake that would violate Phillips' rights.

These experiences of feeling mortified and degraded are not isolated incidents. The refusal of businesses to serve gay couples and LGBTQ+ individuals has been an ongoing issue, with similar cases being brought to court. The impact of such discrimination can be deeply upsetting and humiliating for those affected, as they are made to feel unworthy and unwelcome simply because of who they are.

The emotional distress caused by these incidents highlights the importance of upholding anti-discrimination laws and ensuring that all individuals, regardless of their sexual orientation or gender identity, are treated with dignity and respect. It is crucial that businesses understand the harm caused by discriminatory practices and work towards creating an inclusive and welcoming environment for all customers.

shunbridal

The American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) confidence in the decision being confined to this particular case

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) has expressed confidence that the decision in the case of a baker refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple will be confined to the particular circumstances of that case. This is despite the Supreme Court ruling in favour of the baker, Jack Phillips, and his bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, in 2018.

The ACLU represented the couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, in court. They argued that Phillips' refusal to make the couple a custom cake, while offering them other baked goods, was a violation of Colorado's anti-discrimination laws. The state is one of a minority that includes sexual orientation in its anti-discrimination laws.

The ACLU has stated that the court's decision was based on specific facts relating to the case, and that the court did not accept arguments that would have set a broader precedent allowing businesses to discriminate against customers based on their sexual orientation. They said:

> "The court did not accept arguments that would have turned back the clock on equality by making our basic civil rights protections unenforceable, but reversed this case based on concerns specific to the facts here."

The ACLU also pointed out that Colorado law prohibits discrimination based on protected characteristics, and they are confident that courts will continue to uphold this law. They tweeted:

> "Colorado law prohibits discrimination based on who you are. We’re confident the courts will once again rule that businesses don’t have a right to discriminate."

The ACLU's confidence in the narrow scope of the decision is shared by some other liberal groups. The Human Rights Campaign, for example, noted the limited frame of reference of the ruling, and stated that the Supreme Court "acknowledged that LGBT people are equal and have a right to live free from the indignity of discrimination".

However, it is important to note that the ACLU's confidence in the decision being confined to this particular case does not mean that they agreed with the outcome. They represented the couple in court and continue to fight for LGBT rights and against discrimination.

shunbridal

The Supreme Court's conservative majority view that forcing a graphic artist to create websites for same-sex weddings would violate her free speech rights

The Supreme Court's conservative majority seems prepared to rule in Smith's favor, asserting that the First Amendment protects her from creating websites celebrating same-sex weddings. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, stated that the First Amendment protects an individual's right to speak their mind, regardless of whether others consider their speech sensible or misguided. This decision aligns with the court's previous ruling in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing religious objections.

However, the court's liberal members expressed concerns about the potential impact of such a ruling on gay rights and anti-discrimination efforts. Justice Sonia Sotomayor highlighted that this would be the first time the court ruled that a commercial business could refuse to serve a customer based on race, sex, religion, or sexual orientation. The court's decision in this case will have significant implications for both free speech and anti-discrimination laws in the United States.

Frequently asked questions

The baker, Jack Phillips, refused to make a cake for a gay couple's wedding due to his Christian beliefs. The case went to the US Supreme Court, which ruled in Phillips' favour.

No, the Supreme Court avoided a wider ruling on this issue. The court ruled 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated Phillips' rights under the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression.

David Mullins and Charlie Craig said they left the bakery in tears, feeling "mortified" and "degraded". They said they didn't want other couples to go through what they did and that it was not about the cake but about being discriminated against for being gay.

The ruling only addressed the handling of Phillips' case and left open the question of whether anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs in future cases. However, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), which represented the couple in court, expressed confidence that the decision was confined to this particular case.

In a separate case, the same baker, Jack Phillips, lost an appeal over his refusal to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. The Colorado Court of Appeals ruled that Phillips violated the rights of Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman, by denying her service based on her identity.

Written by
Reviewed by
Share this post
Print
Did this article help you?

Leave a comment