In a 7-2 ruling on Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted in favour of Masterpiece Cakeshop, the bakery that denied service to a same-sex couple in Colorado. It was the court’s decision that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had been hostile to the business owner Jack Phillips’ ‘religious beliefs’, and that he was not provided a fair hearing. Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor were the only opposing votes, and even though the case ended with an unfavourable outcome for the LGBTQ community, the Supreme Court has insisted that this decision does not set a precedent for future cases.
“The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognising that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market,” wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, in a portion of the decision.
The case began back in 2012, when Phillips claimed that he had a right to discriminate against same-sex couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig because of his religious beliefs. Originally, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and lower courts came to the conclusion that Phillips had illegally discriminated against the couple by refusing their request to make the cake. After losing the case, Phillips then took his case to the Supreme Court. Many LGBTQ advocates then became increasingly concerned with the outcome, seeing it as an open invitation for future cases of discrimination to be masked behind the cover of religious beliefs.
Currently, many states and the federal government do not have explicit language against LGBTQ discrimination, claiming that the laws that protect people from discrimination based on assumed gender are sufficient to cover their rights. However, these laws are vague, with room for states’ interpretation.
In the Supreme Court’s ruling, the serious question of whether or not religious beliefs can allow someone to discriminate against another based on their sexual orientation has been side-stepped. Instead of facing the issue at hand, the court attempted to take on the case as a separate issue from the topic of LGBTQ rights. Although the Supreme Court’s decision is premised on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s poor treatment of Phillips, it is impossible to ignore the politics of the decision, especially when Phillips’ attorneys included members of the anti-LGBTQ advocacy organisation, Alliance Defending Freedom, in their argument.
The anti-LGBTQ organisation held that Phillips’ status as a baker makes him an artist, and that forcing him to sell cakes to same-sex couples would stifle his right to artistic expression.
On the other hand, the argument against Masterpiece Cakeshop, made by attorneys from the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), held that the case actually had nothing to do with Phillips’ right to free speech and religious expression. They argued instead that Masterpiece Cakeshop was in the wrong, for the reason that it is unlawful under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to deny goods or services to someone due to their disability, race, creed, sex, sexual orientation, marital states, national origin, or ancestry.
Latest posts by Conner Martinez (see all)
- Supreme Court Rules Colorado Baker Can Refuse To Make Wedding Cake For Same-Sex Couple - June 10, 2018
- Inmates Across The U.S. Are Becoming Sick Because Of Prison Food - January 6, 2018
- Journalists In Mexico Continue To Be Killed Without Justice - December 29, 2017