After this encounter, the couple filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers based on race, gender, religion, or sexual orientation. This resulted in a lawsuit in which the court ruled against the cake shop and in favor of the couple. Masterpiece Cakeshop requested an appeal in the Colorado Court of Appeals which was rejected, so they petitioned a review to the U.S. Supreme Court on the question: “Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips[the cake shop owner] to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.”
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the ACLU discouraged the Supreme Court from accepting the appeal for fear that a reversal in Colorado’s decision could leave a gaping hole in civil rights with religious exemptions. In the end the Supreme Court overturned the Commission’s decision on a 7-2 vote stating that the Commission didn’t employ religious neutrality violating Masterpiece’s owner to exercise freedom of religion. Dissenters were Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Ginsberg stated "what critically differentiates them is the role the customer’s 'statutorily protected trait,' played in the denial of service".
This case was a critical example of the conflict between religion and civil rights. Personally, I feel like the justification in favor of the cake shop is similar to segregationists’ justification for the denial of serving African Americans at diners, restaurants, etc. during the Jim Crow era. Many whites used religion to justify the inferiority of blacks claiming God created whites as the superior race. I also acknowledge that the Masterpiece owners have the freedom to believe whatever they want. However, when those beliefs infringe on others' civil rights it becomes a problem Time will tell if the Supreme Court will recognize these parallels and how religion can play a role in infringing on civil rights.
/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/57877101/GettyImages_886483930.0.jpg)
Source:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
I really enjoyed this blog post and I thought it was super intresting to read! I have heard about this initial case many times over the years since it had happened and was really happy that you decided to write about it and how it reflects the history we are currently learning. When in class I also made the same connections between these modern events and pass events and thought it was super intresting yet sad how history seems to repeat itself in this way, I feel that in America there has always been an issue regarding religion and civil rights and where we can draw that line.
ReplyDeleteI thought this was a cool blog post because it draws parallels between how legal issues in the 1960s are still related to ongoing debates today. In the case, the justices never explicitly ruled on the question of whether or not it violated freedom of religion to actually force the bakers to make a cake for the same sex couple. Instead, they just discussed how the Commission was hostile to one's religious beliefs. This leaves the future open for many more debates, which is something that I think will be interesting and important to follow. In my personal opinion, I agree with Angelina that when one's rights infringe on another's, it is important to consider the ways we can make a fair decision, especially taking into account the experiences of marginalized groups and the separation of church and state.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/
I thought this was a super important and interesting blog post! I really like the connection you drew between the Masterpiece Cakeshop and the segregated public spaces in the Jim Crow era. Even though the discrimination was based on sexual orientation instead of race, this recent case demonstrates the ongoing issue of people using their personal beliefs to justify denying others of their civil rights.
ReplyDelete