The Ellsworth and Dority v. Dios Es Bueno Bakery Case: Violation of First Amendment Rights
The Ellsworth and Dority v. Dios Es Bueno Bakery case serves as an example of how the First Amendment rights are infringed upon by the Illinois Civil Rights Commission's enforcement of the antidiscrimination statutes regarding sexual orientation. Therefore, it is crucial to interpret the pertinent information in order to prevent any conflicts of this nature. The most heinous form of discrimination against a customer might be to refuse to service them at all, as was the case in the situation described above. Since the state had a strong interest in eliminating discrimination, the courts have argued that even though the antidiscrimination laws violated the First Amendment rights, they were still necessary to uphold those rights. Additionally, the case of Ellsworth and Dority v. Dios Es Bueno Bakery also shows how the antidiscrimination laws have progressively turned out to be a vital menace to the religious freedom and the freedom of expressive association. In this case, Christina Cortez found her rights to be in jeopardy.
Judicial Opinion of the Supreme Court: Violation of First Amendment Rights
Regarding the judicial opinion of the Supreme Court, it can be argued that in the case of Ellsworth and Dority v. Dios Es Bueno Bakery, the First Amendment rights of Christina Cortez were violated. As such, the discrimination claim against her is entitled to no constitutional protection. The very purpose of the free exercise of religion and freedom of speech protections of the First Amendment is to prevent the government from quashing the promotion or the expression of various ideas. In regards to the First Amendment, there shall be no law from the Congress that abridges the freedom of speech or respecting an establishment of religion (Jones 5).
Freedom of Expressive Association vs. Free Exercise of Religion
In the case of Ellsworth and Dority v. Dios Es Bueno Bakery, Cortez involved the freedom of expressive association, not the free exercise of religion. Her involved discrimination to Ellsworth and Dority was perfectly legal under the federal law. This is because; the freedom of expression implies that she has the right to play-act, draw, sing, or write what she feels or believes. This was her right as a United States citizen even if what she wanted to express is beyond doubt horrible and offends people. Based on what she had learned, Cortez believed that refusing to celebrate a wedding that contradicts her faith was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. For the claim of the free exercise of religion, the clause has the purpose of securing Cortez's religious liberty by prohibiting any civil authority invasion. It prevents the regulations of religious beliefs by the government whereby it bars the misuse of secular governmental programs, in this case legalizing same-sex marriage to impede the observance of one's religion.
Limitations and Protections of the Free Exercise of Religion
Conversely, it has long been held that the clause of the free exercise of worship does not permanently stop the government from forbidding the doing of some act or requiring the doing of various. This is because the religious beliefs underlie the conduct in question. Furthermore, this clause embraces two concepts, which are the freedom to act and the freedom to believe. The Freedom to think is absolute while the freedom of action can't be since although the laws cannot interfere with religious opinions and beliefs, such laws may interfere with practices. Additionally, the religiously motivated, similar to other speech, can be subjected to reasonable manner, place, or time. Various courts have gone again to the belief-conduct dichotomy whereby conducts, which are motivated by religion, are not entitled to special protection. For this reason, the free exercise of religion claim may be rejected to when it comes to violating Cortez's rights. This is because although the text of the clause sounds absolute, the Supreme Court has had to impose some on the freedom to practice religion. This means that although the freedom to believe is absolute, the liberty to act on such beliefs is not (Haynes et al. 38).
Violation of Right to Artistic Free Expression
Furthermore, the autonomy of exercise of religion may be rejected when arguing for Cortez's right to refuse to serve Ellsworth and Dority due to her religious belief. This is because although the free exercise of religion promises the liberty to religious actions and religious beliefs, the Conduct remains subject to regulation for the protection of the community (Bardes et al. 12). Nonetheless, it can be argued that the Illinois Civil Rights Commission violated Cortez's right to artistic free expression. In essence, the right to print and say what one likes holds a special place in the hearts of the American people. This is because the population believes that the freedom of speech is an element of their national birthright. The stricture against abridging the speech is absolute. This implies that the state cannot constitutionally forbid Cortez to say no to Ellsworth and Dority because she has the freedom and the right to say whatever she wants to say (Kersch 3). The free speech needs to be protected for the reason that the United States cannot be regarded as a democratic and open government if the citizens are not allowed to read or write what they wish. Also, this should be the case, even if, the speech criticizes government policies and laws or are deliberately offensive.
Importance of Freedom of Speech in a Democratic Society
The U.S. has the strongest as well as the noblest free speech tradition globally. As such, the very foundation of the country's liberty has been this tradition. The tradition of the First Amendment protects even the speech that is purposely offensive or provocative such as the response of Cortez to Ellsworth and Dority. The First Amendment protects Cortez's response since the right to the freedom of speech is her absolute right to express her opinion without the interference of the government (Hodges 59). The clause allows Cortez to say things, although it does not make them right. Apart from the speech that constitutes fighting words or threats, pornography, and obscenity, the First Amendment protects all the other types of speech. The freedom of expression applies to every citizen, which means that Cortez was free to write about, talk about or otherwise express her opinions and ideas without any interference or censorship from the state.
Importance of Freedom of Expression in a Democratic Society
The freedom of expression is protected for the reason that the clause is essential foundations of a society that is democratic. This is important since the clause guarantees the right of every person to express opinions, debate ideas, and exchange information. Since these points are considered to be critical, the First Amendment protects not only the expression of views but those that disturb shock or offend as well. In the West, the freedom to discuss ideas without fear and openly, to criticize the authorities, and to say what one likes is of fundamental significance. However, in the case of Ellsworth and Dority v. Dios Es Bueno Bakery, it is evident that this freedom is more and more threatened, and it is so much by the public opinion rather than the law. In regards to the Liberty of discussion, the minority who disagree with particular views are silenced by the majority the majority who share such views, which was the case between the Illinois Civil Rights Commission and Cortez. The position on the free speech limit is at once sophisticated and straightforward. Based on simplicity, the avoidance of harm is the only limit that is allowed, but in regards to the complexity, the implementation of this limit needs controversial judgments on various issues (Cartwright 5).
Protection of Freedom of Speech from Offense
One thing that seems clear in the freedom of speech is that it is not proper to the utterance for the reason that people will be offended by them. Therefore, it is argued that the judgment that since individuals are offended by numerous things, limiting the freedom of speech due to this reason will unacceptable and deeply compromise that freedom. This indicates that the autonomy of expression is so important that the state should not limit it to avoid merely speculative harm as in the case of Ellsworth and Dority v. Dios Es Bueno Bakery. The avoidance of offense should not comprise the curtailing of free speech because it can take time and again be completed by advance warnings to the sensitive concerning the nature of the material (Cartwright 5).
Conclusion
The First Amendment comprises principles that point to a proper balance between the U.S. national constitution and the human right to freedom. Based on these principles, the freedom of expression must be assured and may only be subject to narrowly set restrictions. In this case, it can be argued that Cortez freedom of expression was violated since she had the right to the sovereignty of speech. This included the freedom to receive and seek ideas and information of all kinds, despite the frontiers, either in the form of art, in print, writing, or through any other media of her choice (Kretzmer 23).
Works Cited
Bardes, Barbara A., Shelley, M.C., & Schmidt, S.W. American Government and Politics Today : The Essentials (17th ed.). Boston, MA, Wadsworth Cengage Learning, 2010.
Cartwright, Will. “John Stuart Mill on Freedom of Discussion”. Richmond Journal of Philosophy, no. 5(1), (2003). http://www.richmond-philosophy.net/rjp/back_issues/rjp5_cartwright.pdf . Accessed 2003.
Haynes, Charles C. , Chaltain, S., Ferguson, J.E.Jr., Hudson, D.L.Jr., & Thomas, O. The First Amendment in Schools : A Guide from the First Amendment Center. Alexandria, VA, Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, 2003.
Hodges, Graham R. The Colonial World & the Young Nation. New York, Oxford University Press, 2005.
Jones, Molly. The First Amendment : Freedom of Speech, the Press, and Religion. The Rosen Publishing Group, 2011.
Kersch, Kenneth I. Freedom of Speech : Rights and Liberties under the Law. Santa Barbara, Calif, / Oxford, ABC-CLIO, 2003.
Kretzmer, David. “Freedom of Speech and Racism”. Cardozo Law Review, no. 8(445), 2015. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2666418##. Accessed 28 Sep. 2015.
