Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cake Shop have been in the news an awful lot lately. Phillips is a local Colorado Baker who refused to make a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple who came into his bake shop requesting a cake for their wedding. Even though Mr Phillips declined, he offered to make them a cake or any other of their celebrations or sell them anything else from his bakery. Phillips justified his position by noting that he felt that making a cake for an event like this went against his religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission decided that Phillips violated the law and the case is now waiting to be decided by the Supreme Court.
What makes this case even more intriguing is that Phillips’ case is similar to one of his fellow Colorado bakeries, Azucar Bakery. In 2015, a customer had been denied service when requesting a cake with a message against same-sex marriage involving two men holding hands over a Bible with a red “X” over them. There were also additional words and symbols to be included on the cake. The owner of Azucar Bakery refused to make the cake due to its offensive message in opposition to same-sex marriage. Similar to the Phillips’ case, the customer filed a complaint with The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, but the Commission came to a different conclusion. In the Azucar case, the conclusion was that the bakery had not violated any laws.
The
effects on the businesses have been different as well. In Phillips’ case,
he has lost much of his business, due to the fact that he was deemed in violation
of the law. He has had to stop making custom wedding cakes which
accounted for approximately 40% of his business and he is required “to report
to the government whenever he declines to design a cake for any reason.”
Have Phillips’ religious beliefs caused him and his business to be
discriminated against? Many argue yes.
At
first glance, two similar cases and two very different outcomes. The
question is are these two cases really about the same issue. The Alliance
Defending Freedom argues that the cases are similar and that The Colorado Civil
Rights Commission is only concerned with “punishing anyone who does not agree
with the state’s preferred view of marriage.”
I
do not agree and in fact I believe they are not as similar as they might seem.
Both cases are based on discrimination, but not necessarily religion.
Azucar Bakery was discriminating against someone, refusing to make a
cake, but not based upon their own religious beliefs. Rather, the refusal
was based on the cake’s messages. The case would be different if
the owner of the bakery believed that the acceptance and promotion of gay
marriage was a part of his religion, and therefore to make a cake in opposition
to same-sex marriage was against her religion. On the other hand, the Phillips’
case was based on his right to freely exercise his religious beliefs and
therefore refusing to make the cake. Regardless of opinions and the
judgement as to whether or not making the cake was violating Phillips’ first
amendment rights, these cases are not that similar and should not be treated as
such.
I
do believe that Jack Phillips’ case is clear discrimination based on sexuality,
but I also do believe that forcing Phillips to make the cake could be a clear
violation of his right to exercise his own religious beliefs. The reason
why I do agree with the Commission and believe that Jack Phillips’ refusal to
bake the cake should be a violation of the law is because his refusal sets a
precedent. It makes it acceptable to discriminate so long as one argues
that the discriminatory behavior is based on their religion. Even though
Phillip’s religious beliefs are common in his faith anyone could use these
beliefs as an excuse to discriminate. For example, what if someone said
they did not want to work with women because based on their religious beliefs
women are subservient? If the Commission sided with Phillips’ the door
would be open to all types of discrimination in the name of religion. On
the contrary, I do not see a problem with Azucar Bakery not creating the cake
as they were not discriminating on the grounds of sex, religion, race, etc.
They simply did not like the message on the cake and felt it was discriminatory
to many people. Based on their freedom of expression, they have the right
not to put messages that may be offensive on their product.
It is a fine line between
freedom of religion and discrimination, and that is the sole issue that is
confronted in the Phillips’ case. The Supreme Court’s ruling will set a new
precedent that will have implications for borth private business owners like
Jack Phillips and customers who are discriminated against. It should be
noted that the ruling should not have effect cases like Azucar Bakery.
The latter is not a case of the first amendment and should not be viewed
as such. The issue of the constitutionality of the Azucar Bakery to
discriminate based on views can be addressed in another court, but the two
cases should not affect one another. The gravity of the Phillips’ case should
not be underestimated as the implications of the issues of freedom to exercise
religious beliefs and the protection of groups from discrimination are far
reaching.
When a business declines to serve a customer based on a disagreement with their beliefs, I do not personally think that the side of the argument they are on should be taken into account. Both store owners make customizable cakes for weddings, and both have their own political and ideological preferences and differences that they base their morals on. To deny any service to these customers would be an obvious example of discrimination, but to deny making a creation that can be determined unruly or offensive to a group of people should be left at the discretion of the owners of the store. Since these cases mirror one another, but the argument for the difference between the two is that the first amendment is only being brought up in the Phillips case does not mean that they are still very similar in affect. The customers have the right to receive the cake they want, but another party should not have to be forced to comply. It seems as if the customers at each respective cake shop went to the opposing cake shop, their cakes probably would have been made without a problem.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Gabi's assessment of the outcome in this case, however I do not view these cases as being similar in any fashion. Under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, discrimination due to ones race, creed, class, sexual orientation, religion, disability, age, or national-ethnicity are unacceptable. In this case I do not see which clause of CADA was violated by Azucar's refusal to bake the cake. It could be argued this act violated the individuals religious rights, I do not think this is a huge violation. Azucar simply decided to refuse to support the individuals message. If an individual had requested for a cake that called for the genocide of all gingers and the store had refused, I know this would have resulted in the same outcome. This is not discrimination. As a result I do not see how these cases are that similar.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the prior arguments stating that Ms. Rojas was rightfully terminated for refusing the job in which she was hired to do. Although Ms. Rojas makes the argument that performing abortions is against her religious beliefs, she was hired to perform a specific duty and job and she is failing to meet the basic requirements of that job. Therefore, the state was well within their jurisdiction to terminate with the incentive to prevent a slippery slope from forming over what religious beliefs and practices are deemed appropriate for not performing a specific action.
ReplyDelete