Baked and Belittled

    Cathy Miller, a Californian Christian bake shop owner, has been challenged by the Civil Rights Department of California for her denial to depict a same-sex couple on their wedding cake in the case of Civil Rights Dept. v Cathy’s Creations. Cathy’s Creations opened in 2013 with stipulations surrounding what she is comfortable decorating cakes with, excluding anti-Christian values such as LGBTQ+ marriages from possible designs. When a couple walked in the store to request such artwork on their own wedding cake in 2017, Cathy refused, sending them to a different bakery in town to have their cake made. However, the Supreme Court is now faced with the challenge of whether it is within Cathy’s religious rights (outlined by the Free Exercise Clause) to discriminate against a customer's design request based on her own religious beliefs. 

To provide some legal context, the Free Exercise Clause serves the purpose of “secur[ing] religious liberty in the individual by prohibiting any invasions there by civil authority.” This is a difficult feat, as any set limitations on Cathy’s right to refuse by the law could be considered inappropriate invasions by civil authorities. Her argument is that it is within her constitutional right to operate her business by her own means, including turning down customers whose requests do not suit her personal religious beliefs. However, it can also be argued that this refusal to serve customers for their contrasting religion (or lack of religion) also violates this same clause, which outlaws “penaliz[ation] or discriminat[ion] against an individual or a group of individuals because of their religious views.” Should it be considered constitutional for a same-sex couple to walk into a public American bakery and be denied service for the same beliefs the constitution guarantees them the right to have?

In my opinion, although Cathy is freely exercising her religion through these various refusals of service, the act of discrimination against someone’s religious (or non-religious) beliefs and lifestyles is unconstitutional in itself. This is outlined by the Equal Protection Clause, which serves as a safeguard against discrimination by the government or private entities that provide services to the public, such as businesses. It mandates that laws and policies must treat all people equally and fairly, regardless of personal characteristics. For example, Title III of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in places of public accommodation. This clause has been referred to countless times in similar cases to Cathy’s, such as Bob Jones University v. United States (1983), which ruled that the government’s interest in eliminating racial discrimination outweighs a religious institution’s claim to tax-exempt status when it engages in racial discrimination, even if the institution’s religious beliefs support such practices. This case can set a precedent for Cathy’s case, showing that religious claims should not supersede discrimination on a legal plane, and that there is a standard to which religious exemption has to meet in order to be considered constitutional by the court. 

So, although Cathy can be considered to be freely exercising her Christianity, she is, in turn, denying someone the right to practice their own (legal) secular beliefs in doing so. Her refusal of action that is impartial and unbiased to lack of religion does not only violate the Equal Protection Clause, but also the Jeffersonian mandate to “peace and good order” he established. Any act of discrimination where it is legal and safe to accommodate a request can be considered violent and a direct contrary to this notion. 

If businesses are allowed to reject customers’ requests based on personal beliefs, it could set a dangerous precedent where religious views supersede legal protections for individuals of different identities. The rights of LGBTQ+ couples to have their marriages respected, regardless of the personal religious beliefs of service providers, are also safeguarded by civil rights laws. The law should guarantee that no one is excluded from services based on their sexual orientation, just as it is written into the constitution that there is protection against discrimination based on race, religion, or sex. While respecting religious freedom is important, it cannot risk denying another person their basic human rights that are guaranteed by the Constitution, so Cathy’s business should be shut down (or she should be required to service all customers regardless of religious belief). The Supreme Court must respect both the religious beliefs of business owners and the right of every individual to equal treatment under the law.