In this paper, I will be arguing that Jack Phillips is not obligated to extend his skills to gay people as long as he feels it violates his Christian faith and right to express himself, on the condition that he remains consistent with this policy. The idea that a business can refuse to offer service to a person has caused a lot of controversy and debate in the recent years. In 2015, Indiana enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act which caused immediate reaction by gay rights activists arguing that the law was a means of legalizing discrimination against LGBT people[1]. The belief was that business owners were now in a position to refuse serving gays through citing a religious objection. Jack Phillips, a popular baker, refused to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple which was treated as a form of discrimination over people’s identities. The U.S. supreme court ruled in favor of the baker but the justices avoided a broader ruling regarding religious exemptions for business. The essay examines the arguments which support Philips actions as well as those which oppose his purported discrimination. It then refutes the opposing concepts to prove that a business reserves the right to refuse to offer a service based on several factors.
The government has no obligation to force people to morally endorse something that violates their beliefs. In the past decade, lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people have attained significant political and legal gains in the country, particularly the freedom to marry. There has been remarkable improvement of LGBT people as regards to gaining rights and today, even well-known figures are discussing their sexual orientation in public. Moreover, there are many films which feature gay and lesbian people as full participants in a society. Regardless of the progress, LGBT people continue to suffer real discrimination in the various aspects of life. The federal law is not in a position to explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity in areas such as access to services and employment. There is no particular law which protects an individual from getting fired or denied a job position because of their sexual orientation. The country’s largest employer, the military, openly discriminates gays and lesbians. Despite the high level of discrimination encountered, the government is not in a position to deter this negative perception. A few states comprise laws which offer protection for gays but these are not sufficient and often lack a clear recourse whenever they are denied certain services due to one’s orientation. Lawmakers who do not support gay marriages have initiated an anti-LGBT charge pushing for laws which introduce religious exemptions for people who believe that complying with certain law interferes with their beliefs and norms. While the government acknowledges that there is discrimination, it does not have the power to influence the behavior of everyone.
There are many businesses which are eager to offer their services to the gay couples. Currently, there are more than 2,500 commercial bakeries and 6,000 bakeries in the U.S. which demonstrates the scope and size of the industry[2]. Out of this number, the business owners certainly have different affiliations and not all of them subscribe to Christianity, or at least think that working with LGBT people interferes with their faith. The competition in the industry also forces the bakeries to offer high-quality services and use their exemplary skills to satisfy customers. This implies that these bakeries provide excellent services and that one has many options. Consequently, if a business does not meet the requirements of a clients, they can consult others. Phillips’ business is one out of the many bakeries which makes it challenging to understand how one should force an owner to offer them services while there are alternatives. Jack combines his knowledge as a chef with the artistic skills such as painting which makes him unique. He creates unique elaborate custom cakes for the clients which express his message and ideas. As an artist, he has the freedom to create custom order cake designs based on his belief. Essentially, Phillips has the freedom to express his ideologies which entails the right to express a view with which he disagrees. If he feels uncomfortable treating gay couples, then the victims ought to seek services of a business owner who does not have a problem with their identity.
The case represents a perfect example of tolerance as opposed to bigotry. Ideally, Masterpiece Cakeshop is not the only small business which refused to offer services to same-sex couples citing the issue of religion and how this interfered with their belief. In another case, Barronelle Stutzman, denied supplying flowers to a gay marriage although she lost her case in the Supreme Court[3]. It is vital to note that even though the shop felt that dealing with gay couples was against their faith, they were willing to serve these couples with other services. Jack Phillips had always been open to serving LBBT people and this case was simply about a single request which he was not willing to oblige. He felt that providing a cake for the gay wedding would make hi to cross the line from tolerance to moral endorsement. Anyone who consults the services of Masterpiece Cakeshop is allowed to purchase the premade items. He, however, finds it inappropriate to create custom cakes which celebrate messages that conflict with his faith such as those which promote racism or atheism. The First Amendment restricts the government from targeting particular religious groups for disfavored treatment. As such, everyone should be free to live and work consistently with their personal beliefs. In the same way that the state would support him not to customize a cake which marginalizes people based on race or color, it should also support him as he believes homosexuality challenges his beliefs. To enumerate, baking the cake has more significance to him and seemed like he apprehended the institution of same-sex marriage which challenged his faith.
On the other hand, a business has an obligation to serve everyone as long as it is operational. The U.S. law constitutes the principle of public accommodation which states that when a business opens its doors to the public[4], then it automatically enters into an implied contract to serve everyone. Additionally, the owner voluntarily agrees to adhere to the applicable laws and regulations whether they conducive or not. The operations of business are run by the constitution and have to adhere to the applicable rules and regulations. According to the law, a business has to be open to everyone regardless of color, race, sexual orientation, or gender identity. Even in the case that a business owner’s beliefs may motivate one to discriminate, this does not justify exemption form the civil rights law. Arguably, the provision of commercial services like baking cakes does not imply that a business owner endorses the marriage of a gay couple. Rather, it implies that they are following the rules which everyone is under an obligation to follow. A gay restaurant would be expected to serve everyone including straight people, not because they endorse them but simply to avoid inequality. Unfortunately, a lot of protection and attention is given to the people who are straight mostly because they are the majority. Ideally, this attribute alone makes the society look like it only accepts the lifestyles of Christians. The people who support this ordeal want to discriminate others but would not desire for the same thing for their individual cases. The fact that a radical feminist hotel offers accommodation to a heterosexual couple does not force the business owner to change their orientation. In this case, Phillips is not justified to deny baking the cake for the gay couple.
One cannot use a person's identity as an excuse of denying them equal rights to essential services. Business owners should respect other people’s identities and should not use this as a means of denying them services. People who identify as gay are prone to encounter harassment from people who are not comfortable with their way of life. Homophobia is a dominant issue to examine as long as it constitutes LGBT people. Most people have a negative attitude toward these identities rooted in conservative religious beliefs. It may manifest itself in the form of using mean language to these people or simply denying them services. Most people feel threatened by people who have sexual preferences other than their own. It is important to refer to the term heterosexism which is the belief that every individual is heterosexual and therefore, all other sexual orientations are unacceptable. Heterosexism is prevalent in wide range of areas including education, health, and business which makes gays and lesbians feel invisible[5]. This concept has a tremendous impact in most areas such as Jack’s case which made him feel not obliged to use his art to help the gay couple. However, it is not right to discriminate people based on their affiliations and everyone has the right to equal services.
Denying people, the right to enjoy certain services is a form of discrimination like any other. Most people who deny service to gay couples do not necessarily perceive the issue as a matter of religious freedom. Instead, it is often perceived as an issue with the individual rights which makes it paramount to reevaluate the motivations for denying the services. Racial discrimination is a violation of the law, but most people do not see the problem with grouping people on the basis of their sexual orientation. In essence, it is the same thing because either way, the victims are denied what they desire and end up feeling marginalized. Sexual identity refers to the way a person’s thinks of himself and as regards to the person whom they are sexually attracted. Also, it may refer to the way people identify with a specific sexual orientation. This identity concerns an individual’s conception of themselves and their sexual behavior which may concern the acts a person performs. Sexual identity is a sensitive matter since it reflects the way a person perceives himself and is subject to change throughout an individual’s life. There are several countries where homosexuality is criminalized making the gays and lesbians to avoid ‘coming out of the closet’. There are states such as California and Illinois which prohibit discrimination based on gender identity and companies are not entitled to single out employees who are transgender or gays[6]. Equality implies that everyone should have access to same services despite their affiliations or identity and as long as this is not achieved, then it means there is inequality which undermines the constitution and the justice system. There is a lot of discrimination directed toward LGBT people which occurs in the form of harassment or lack of eligibility to access certain services. It is similar to other forms of discrimination and should be approached in the same way others like racial segregation have been addressed. There is no difference between Jack Phillip’s action of refusing to bake for a gay couple and a restaurant which denies taking orders from black clients.
Nevertheless, the American law states that a business can refuse to offer services to specific customers. Most states expect businesses to serve everyone, depending on several factors including the business’s reasons whether political, moral, or discriminatory. A business reserves the right to refuse to offer service based on arbitrary reasons which are outside of the protected classes[7]. However, the reasons should be legitimate enough to hold up in court. Generally, the refusal to offer a service is justifiable in the case that the presence of a customer interferes with the establishment and well-being of other people in the business. In the case of Jack Philips, he was ordered to file reports with the government for a period of two years where he cited his compliance with the unconstitutional mandate. But he refused and dropped the business of making custom cakes which has a great impact on the operation of the business as it affected many people including the workers who lost jobs. His case eventually proved that the federal judiciary does not simply concern legal scholars at t he conventions. More importantly, it affects the real lives including bakers, florists, and photographers. The concept that the government may compel its people to violant their consciences in an effort to tolerate what one does not subject to is a great threat to people’s liberties. The Supreme Court decided in favor of the baker who honestly was only trying to protect his faith and identity.
Moreover, Jack Phillips has own identity and way of life, does not feel obligated to interact with LGBT. In the recent past, religious exemptions from civil rights have been rampant. Over the years, businesses have made attempts to be eligible to give women less compensation due to the belief that men are the heads of households. In other case, businesses have refrained from offering services to people who are HIV positive due to the belief that they are sinful. Religious exemptions are more acceptable when it concerns people’s religious beliefs which are being violated. States have presented laws which license discrimination by businesses. In the same way that the gay couple may want their opinions heard, it is the same way the beliefs of Jack Phillips should be considered. If at all interacting at enhanced level with the gays prompts the business owner to doubt his faith, then it is better if he abandoned the entire interaction with the couple.
LGBT is a protected group, and Phillips is consistent with his policy to everyone. Although the premade products of the bakery are available to everyone, regardless of their gender identity or sexual orientation, Jack Phillips felt that making a custom cake for a gay couple was too much and crossed the line from tolerance to endorsing their culture. He maintains his policy and has not used his skills before to bake cakes for LGBT couples before. The first time he was prompted to do so caused headlines as he immediately refused and has not offered his services to any other gay marriage thereafter which proves that he was not discrimination the two partners in this case.
In summary, Phillips is justified to refuse to offer services to LGBT people as he is consistent and believes that interacting with this group challenges his own identity. Anyone seeking baking services may opt for many other businesses offering similar service and products. Even though the American law emphasizes that a business which is operational must offer services to everyone, the judiciary system is also very open to such controversial cases and carefully analyzed the artist’s case ruling in his favor.
Bibliography
Carbonetto, Belén, Johan Ramsayer, and Thibault Nideet. 2018. "Bakery yeasts, a new model for studies in ecology and evolution." EcoYeast Review 35 (11): 591-603.
Leppel, Karen. 2016. "The labor force status of transgender men and women." International Journal of Transgenderism 17 (3-4): 155-164.
Logie, Carmen H, and A Perez-Brumer. 2018. "Exploring experiences of heterosexism and coping strategies among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons in Swaziland." Gender and Development 26 (1): 15-32.
Lupu, Ira C. 2015. "Hobby Lobby and the dubious enterprise of religious exemptions." Harv. Women's 38 (35). https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/hwlj38"div=6"id="page=.
Schulman, Sarah. 2018. My American history: Lesbian and gay life during the Reagan and Bush years. London: Routledge.
Stinger, Joseph W. 2015. "We Don't Serve Your Kind Here: Public Accommodation and the Mark of Sodom." B.U. L. 929-935.
Walsh, Anthony. 2017. "Tragic Choices in Ideological Battles: Gay Rights Versus Religious Freedom." Journal of Religion " Society 17.
[1]
Lupu, Ira C. 2015. "Hobby Lobby and the dubious enterprise of religious exemptions." Harv. Women's 38 (35).
[2]
Carbonetto, Belén, Johan Ramsayer, and Thibault Nideet. 2018. "Bakery yeasts, a new model for studies in ecology and evolution." EcoYeast Review 35 (11): 591-603.
[3]
Walsh, Anthony. 2017. "Tragic Choices in Ideological Battles: Gay Rights Versus Religious Freedom." Journal of Religion " Society 17.
[4]
Stinger, Joseph W. 2015. "We Don't Serve Your Kind Here: Public Accommodation and the Mark of Sodom." B.U. L. 929-935.
[5] Logie, Carmen H, and A Perez-Brumer. 2018. "Exploring experiences of heterosexism and coping strategies among lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender persons in Swaziland." Gender and Development 26 (1): 15-32.
[6]
Leppel, Karen. 2016. "The labor force status of transgender men and women." International Journal of Transgenderism 17 (3-4): 155-164.
[7]
Schulman, Sarah. 2018. My American history: Lesbian and gay life during the Reagan and Bush years. London: Routledge.
