The law requires equal treatment of all individuals in the society and at the same time respect their freedom as provided by the constitution. Some individuals in the society face discrimination in the community, for instance, based on sexual orientation. In the essay, I observe the happenings in a case and give my position based on the facts available in the case. In the event, Mr. Phillip, a baker turned down the offer by the same-sex group to create and sell them a cake because of his strong faith.
In the case, the first two decisions by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) and Colorado Court of Appeal favored the couple, and the final verdict by the Supreme Court favored the baker. According to Supreme Court judges, the decision came after considering various misinterpretations by the former courts. First, at the occurrence of the matter, the state of Colorado prohibited same-sex marriage, and they were planning to get a legal union in Massachusetts (The Supreme Court of the United States 1). It was, therefore, unlawful for them to defend the couple and yet the state laws did not recognize gay marriages.
According to the Supreme Court, they also violated the free exercise clause. It states that the law and constitution should always protect gay people, but denomination and rational objections are defended opinions. Another critical issue is the failure by CCRC and the Court of appeal to treat Philip's case as former three cases, for instance, Jack vs. Azucar Bakery (American Bar Association 5). According to Justice Kagan, some of the commissioners treated Philips case with hostility in various public hearings with no objections from other commissioners. For example, ascertaining that religious moral cannot be raised in the public domain.
In my opinion, the baker's actions were protected by the constitution since at the time Colorado State allowed storekeepers freedom of declining to create individual messages they did not like (American Bar Association 3). The law above was applied in three previous court rulings involving other bakers in the state. However, it could not do the same in this case an act that perhaps show some levels of discrimination. Notably, at the time the state did not recognize gay marriage and therefore to him, he thought he was doing something not permitted. The first amendment gave the baker freedom of speech and religion thus he was not to be forced to create messages he disagreed with because they were against his morals.
The baker offered to sell the couple cookies, brownies, birthday cakes and shower cakes but he could not create a marriage cake that was against his religious beliefs (The Supreme Court of the United States 3). According to some of the supreme court judges, the law and the constitution provides for non-discrimination in the society, for instance, the Fourteenth constitutional amendment gives different sexual orientation groups freedom in the community. At the same time, all critical factors and elements of the constitution need to be upheld by law firms to make sound judgments.
Works Cited
American Bar Association. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd.; and Jack C. Philips, V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission; Charlie Craig; and David Mullins, 7 Sept. 2017, www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/publications/supreme_court_preview/briefs-2017-2018/16-111-amicus-pet-william-jack-et-al.authcheckdam.pdf.
The Supreme Court of the United States. "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., Et Al. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Et Al." Home - Supreme Court of the United States, Oct. 2017, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf.
