In 2013, Sweet Cakes received an offer to make a custom designed wedding cake for a same-sex weddings. Aaron and Melissa respectfully denied the request of the customers. Same-sex marriage was a violation of their Christian beliefs as they believe that marriage is a sacred union between one man and one woman. They believed that if they were to make the cake for the wedding it would be a sign of their support for the wedding. The couple that was denied from Sweet Cakes felt as though they were being discriminated against based upon their sexual orientation.
The couple filed a complaint with the state that Sweet Cakes violated Oregon’s Public Accommodation Law when they refused to serve a wedding cake because it was a same sex marriage. The Oregon Public Accommodation Law states that it is illegal for places that do business with the public to discriminate against any individual based on specific characteristics that are protected. These protected characteristics include sexual orientation as well as race, sex, national origin, religion, marital status, physical or mental disability, or age.
Oregon determined that this was a violation of the Public Accommodation Law and they charged the Klein’s with a $135,000 fine. Additionally, they put in place a gag order against the Klein’s restricting them from talking about their beliefs in public. The commissioner who reviewed the case had made statements online and in interviews prior to the case that he was going to rule that the Klein’s were guilty of violating the Oregon Public accommodation law. The commissioner claimed that the Kleins were using their religious beliefs as “an excuse” for not serving a same sex couple. He also claimed that the Kleins needed to be rehabilitated due to their religious beliefs. Due to the fine and the boycotts the Kleins had no option but to shut down Sweet Cakes. The Kleins believed that their Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was violated as they felt they were being forced to act in ways that did not correspond with their religious beliefs.
This case is attempting to determine if the Kleins Free Exercise Clause is violated due to the Oregon Public Accommodation law being applied when they denied serving a wedding cake to a same sex couple. The purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to protect individuals’ right to practice their religion without government interference. Anti-discrimination laws are very important ensuring that all individuals are treated fairly and equally. However, applying the Oregon Public Accommodation law to the Kleins did in fact violate their Free Exercise Clause. This case is very similar to the precedent Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Masterpiece Cakeshop was a bakery in Colorado that made custom cakes for weddings. The owner was Jack Phillips who ran his business based upon his Chrstian beliefs and believed that his cakes were a form of art in which he honored God. A same sex couple requested for Jack Phillips to design a cake for their wedding but Phillips declined as he believed this would violate his religious beliefs. The same sex couple felt as though they were being discriminated against so they filed that Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. Phillips believed that his Free Exercise Clause was violated and the Supreme Court agreed with him. The Supreme Court acknowledged that decorating cakes is a form of artistic expression and is a factor of his sincere religious beliefs. The court also stated that this showed hostility toward religion and that hostility by the government towards religion is prohibited by the First Amendment. The Supreme Court determined that this was not neutral towards religion and Philips should be provided a religious exemption from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The facts of this case are very similar to the facts of the Sweet Cakes case so according to the precedent the Kleins’ free exercise of religion was violated.
I believe that in this case the Klein’s Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment was violated. I do believe that anti-discrimination laws are very important to ensure equal services especially for LGBTQ+ individuals. However, I do not think that individuals such as the Klein’s should have to go against their sincerely held religious beliefs. The decorating of wedding cakes is seen as a form of artistic expression as decided in the precedent case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Kleins should not be forced to create artwork that does not agree with their religious beliefs. When the Oregon Public Accommodation law is applied it is not neutral to those religions that believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman. The Free Exercise Clause is put in place to ensure that religious beliefs should be treated neutrally so this is unconstitutional. Additionally, there is clear hostility towards the Kleins and their religious beliefs by the commissioner. The commissioner was clearly biased in his decision as he made comments expressing that he already made his decision to rule against the Kleins prior to hearing the case. He also made many comments invalidating the sincerity of the Kleins and their views claiming that they were using their religious beliefs as an excuse for not following the anti-discrimination law. The commissioner went as far as saying that the Kleins need rehabilitation because of their religious beliefs. These comments clearly show hostility and bias towards the religious beliefs of the Kleins which is unconstitutional. Another aspect I believe that is important to note is that the Kleins were not only denying same sex couples. They also denied individuals who wanted cakes with profanity, cakes celebrating divorce, or cakes displaying harm to other individuals. The Kleins were not willing to create art expressions that went against their religious beliefs and this was not limited to same sex couples. This case demonstrates the importance of balancing religious liberties and anti-discrimination laws and in this scenario the religious liberties of the Kleins should be protected.
Sources
5 comments:
Nice work, Kayla. I agree with your analysis that this case closely mirrors Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. However, a crucial fact in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is that Jack Philips would sell items such as cookies and brownies to LGBTQ+ couples. He simply drew the line with providing wedding cakes that endorsed a marriage in which Philips did not believe was accepted under his religious practices. While your blog seems to allude to a similar pattern of behavior by Sweet Cakes by Melissa, this small fact is crucial within the context of the case. As such, if you decide to use this topic as your final paper concept, I would encourage you to stress that aspect of the case. Great job!
Hi Kayla,
This was a really interesting case to read. I think that you provide a compelling argument about how the situation in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission very closely aligns. Since this bakery only sold wedding cakes, I believe that the same precedent should be followed. The couple has clearly shown their religious beliefs and have the same reasoning as Jack Phillips as to why they would not complete the order. Overall, this was a great case and I agree with your analysis.
This a cool case. It reminded me of a case I wrote about awhile ago involving a wedding cake shop called Tasteries. I 100% agree with your position on this issue. Klein's free exercise clause of the first amendment is being completely violated. The precedent used of Masterpiece Cakeshop is extremely applicable in this case as they were strictly denying only because of religious reasons. The Kleins have the right to deny them based solely off that according to precedents set by the court.
Kayla,
This case is a great parallel to our recent discussions surrounding Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. I completely agree with the points made to defend your holding. It is clear that the Kleins' sincerely held religious beliefs guided their decision-making process in running their bakery, just as it did for Jack Phillips in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. The fact that the Kleins were willing to decline requests for cakes with profanity, celebrating divorce, or displaying harm to others proves that their objections were not limited to same-sex weddings but were consistent with their religious convictions and thus, not rooted in discriminatory motivations. Great post!
Kayla,
This was such a great post! I totally agree with you that the Kleins' rights were violated. I think this was such a big case on sincerity. Since they did not make other cakes that went against their religion, I think that they were showing that they were sincere in their beliefs. Also, I think it is crazy that the commissioner said that they should be rehabilitated. In this case, the Kleins were being just as discriminated as the same-sex couple because if that were to be said about that couple, there would be major problems, but it was fine to say it about the religious couple. Great post!
Post a Comment