Contentious Cake: Religious Rights Or Discrimination?
An American bakery refusing to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple has been making news headlines for several years. The recent Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage raised the issue of whether certain religious businesses or organizations that oppose gay marriage should be allowed to discriminate against serving same-sex couples.
Religious Freedom or Discrimination?
In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig contacted a bakery in Denver to discuss a wedding cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips is a Christian who refused to even talk about making a cake for the couple because of his religious beliefs. The outraged couple challenged his decison since the bakery owner admitted that his refusal of service was based on their relationship violating his religious views. They worked with a state civil rights organization, and Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is now a hot ticket on the docket.
The Constitution Versus Colorado State Law
In Colorado, there is a state law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against patrons for their sexual orientation, race or religion. After hearing about the incident, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission pointed out that Jack Phillips violated this law. Those who support the bakery owner’s decision argue that he was using the First Amendment’s protection of religious freedom for his decision. They also argue that the Constitution is a federal document, and federal laws are supposed to trump state laws based on the Constitution’s supremacy clause, which is Article VI, Clause 2. The bakery shop owner said that freedom of speech and religious freedom both exempt him from the Colorado state law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation.
READ: Sujit Choudhry’s interview with Ideamensch
When Laws Conflict: What Will The Court Decide?
The main problem with this case is that the bakery shop owner’s religious beliefs lead to discrimination against others. Also, the Constitution’s wording about religious freedom is vague. It does not expressly state that discriminatory acts are protected as a type of religious freedom. In recent years, the Supreme Court has been conscientious about making rulings that fight discrimination on many levels. One of the most historic rulings was that same-sex marriages would be allowed.
Since federal laws and basic protections extend to same-sex couples, the Supreme Court justices decided that marriage was a basic right as well. Since marriage is a right, discriminating against a couple based on that right raises serious ethical issues. This case is especially tough because the Supreme Court is also dedicated to generously protecting the First Amendment. Many recent rulings have been made in favor of the First Amendment and have blocked government intrusion of religious practices, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
SEE ALSO: Sujit Choudhry speaks out on Spain and Catalonia
What Do the Experts Say?
Although there is a supremacy clause in the Constitution, the document does not grant people the right to discriminate against others or break state laws if a law burdens their personal religious beliefs. The bakery owner’s defense of using the First Amendment is weak. Some people argue that the Constitution was written at a time when religious groups who faced persecution wanted the freedom to hold and practice their beliefs without fear of retribution. Some experts say that the religious freedom mentioned in the Constitution is simply the freedom to choose and practice a religion.
As a constitutional law expert, I would like to point out that the bakery owner’s defense is weak because of a previous landmark case. In the 1990 Employment Division v. Smith case, Native Americans in Oregon wanted to use peyote as part of their religious rituals. However, the substance was banned by Oregon’s state laws. In a Supreme Court decision, the state’s law was upheld over the group’s religious beliefs. The Native Americans were not permitted a religious exemption to such a general law, and a Supreme Court justice said that this held true even if they considered it heavily burdensome on their religious beliefs. Since this case is now a precedent, it would not make sense for Jack Phillips to use the First Amendment as a defense against violating a state law to discriminate against others.
Another argument that Jack Phillips has cited is that forcing him to make a cake for a same-sex couple would be impermissible compelled speech, which is a violation of the First Amendment. He said that baking cakes is a form of artistic expression for him. However, the Supreme Court runs the risk of letting all businesses make this claim if they rule in favor of the bakery owner on his stance. Since many issues could arise from a decision in favor of the baker or against him, the Supreme Court justices are pausing to consider these effects before making a ruling on the controversial case.
For more legal analysis and insight, follow constitutional law expert Sujit Choudhry on Facebook, Twitter or visit his website sujitchoudhry.com for more information.
