“In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides with Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple”
Article Summary
Gay or lesbian marriage is an issue that has been discussed in the society for a long time and the discussion still continues. Different states have enacted laws to protect gay people while other people still hold a strong religious belief that it should not be encouraged. The article involves a case of Mr. Phillips who refused to sell a cake to a gay couple, Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins. The couple decided to sue the baker on the grounds that he was discriminative as well as a breaker of the law. However, the baker pursued the case on the grounds that he had strong religious beliefs that do not allow him to support homosexuality. The Colorado state court had initially ruled in favor of the gay couple but when the case was taken to the Supreme Court, the baker won. The Supreme Court’s ruling raised the question of whether laws governing gay people should be subjected under religious beliefs. The decision also brings out a lot of complications, “it left open the larger question of whether a business can discriminate against gay men and lesbians based on rights protected by the First Amendment[1].”
Argument
Gay people are human beings who have made their life choices to spend with people of similar sex just like straight people decide to get married to the opposite sex and should not be discriminated whatsoever. Mr. Phillips had his reasons not refuse service to the couple but the reason should have been more satisfying. In regards, nobody would judge him by providing his honest services or acclaim that by baking the cake, he supported gay-ism. The situation is the same as saying that a pastor would stop preaching in a church because the gay people attended the church. The baker could have been right to deny the couple the gay decorated cake based on free speech just like Justice Ruth claimed[2]. Free speech gives business men the right to refuse service to anyone but cannot be associated to discrimination. It is true that the baker had freedom of expression but so did the gay couple that only wanted a cake to celebrate their re-union.
Religious beliefs should be respected but not under the suffering of other people. The court even refused to address the matter widely regarding the matter because they did not want to pose their opinions on how to run their businesses but it feels more like it was because they knew they had taken the wrong turn. If Mr. Phillips was as religious as he claimed to be, he would not judge people based on their life choices[3]. The same applies to if he went to purchase the same cake to a homosexual and they claimed that they did not sell cakes to straight people, wouldn’t that be regarded as discrimination? The court ruling had a great effect on the gay community because it seemed like their rights even the ones which have been enacted by the court were not being followed to the letter. The court claimed that the “Colorado Civil Rights Commission” had prejudiced Mr. Phillips but what about their bias towards Craig and Mullins? By ruling in favor of discrimination the court gave other people and especially business men the strength to discriminate the gay community.
Violence
Direct violence is clearly present between the baker and the gay couple and that is why it became an issue of the court. The violence is direct because first it is between people, and secondly because they are fighting against an issue that can be attributed to cultural norms. The baker and the couple are casing over a cake issue on whether business people should deny service to someone because of their sexual preferences. There also exists an indirect violence between the society and discrimination of homosexuality[4]. Mr. Phillips is a representation of the society in general and it is clearly visible that the society is not a place for gay people. The society is also governed by religious beliefs that have no tolerance for same-sex marriage and that is why the baker openly refuses to use his artistic skills to provide a cake for the Craig and Mullins. The court’s ruling in favor of the baker clearly supports the indirect violence even though there are laws protecting gays and lesbians.
Conclusion
“In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides with Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple” is an article which provides a glimpse of the way same-sex couples are treated in the society. The article also shows that even though there have been rights and laws set aside to protect these people, they are never followed to the latter and people including the court will try to find an excuse to discriminate them. The case which involves a baker who refuses to sell his cakes to a gay couple get a favor from the court claiming that he has freedom of expression justifying his actions; in addition he had such strong religious beliefs. The case brings about direct and indirect violence. The direct violence is between the couple and the baker while indirect violence is between the society and same-sex couples.
Bibliographies
"Top US Court Backs Baker's Gay Cake Snub." BBC News. Last modified June 4, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162.
Donovan, James M. "Half-Baked: The Demand by For-Profit Businesses for Religious Exemptions from Selling to Same-Sex Couples." Loy. LAL Rev. 49 (2016): 39.
Koppelman, Andrew. "Gay Rights, Religious Accommodations, and the Purposes of Antidiscrimination Law." S. Cal. L. Rev. 88 (2014): 619.
Liptak, Adam. "In narrow decision, Supreme Court sides with Baker who turned away gay couple." New York Times. Retrieved from https://www. nytimes. com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple. html (2018).
[1]
Liptak, Adam. "In narrow decision, Supreme Court sides with Baker who turned away gay couple." New York Times. Retrieved from https://www. nytimes. com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple. html (2018).
[2]
Donovan, James M. "Half-Baked: The Demand by For-Profit Businesses for Religious Exemptions from Selling to Same-Sex Couples." Loy. LAL Rev. 49 (2016): 39.
[3]
Koppelman, Andrew. "Gay Rights, Religious Accommodations, and the Purposes of Antidiscrimination Law." S. Cal. L. Rev. 88 (2014): 619.
[4]
Top US Court Backs Baker's Gay Cake Snub." BBC News. Last modified June 4, 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-44361162.
