On December 25, The Supreme Court of the United States will
hear testimony in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The case is about a Christian man who refused to create a custom cake for a gay
couple’s wedding. Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, refused on the
grounds that his art, cake decorating, is his way of honoring God. The couple,
Charlie Craig and David Mullins, filed a complaint of discrimination with the
Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act
(CADA), which then found that Masterpiece did discriminate against the couple. What
happened to a business owner’s right to not take a job that conflicts with his
beliefs? Are the beliefs of the LBGT community more important than those of
other groups? A quick Google search of cake shops in Denver found 8 pages with
22 shops listed on the first page. Even if the last page only has one shop on
it, that is over 150 shops that the couple could have chosen from. There are
many “anti-discrimination” laws on the books today that are being abused to
further a political agenda. The couple in question here claim that they brought
this case not about the cake, but “it’s about us being able to be free to be
treated equally in the public realm.” The problem with that statement is that
Masterpiece was doing just that. Mr. Phillips states,” I don’t create custom
designs for events or messages that conflict with my conscience.” That means no
Halloween cakes, no bachelor or bachelorette cakes, and no anti-American cakes.
He says he even refused an anti-LGBT message. I agree that we need protections
against discrimination, but maybe we need to go back and look at what we call
discrimination and make sure that definition is sound.
2 comments:
I agree with this post. I think the whole discrimination does not apply here because he was not refusing service to the couple. He even offered to sell the couple any other items in the bakery. He just wouldn't make a specific cake that goes against his religion. It would be discrimination if he was refusing to let them buy from his bakery, but that was not the case. I like how Scott mentioned that they easily could have gone to another bakery if they wanted that specific cake to be made because there are many surrounding bakers who don't have the same religious stance and would've made a cake.
Hello!
I agree that the issue here may not be discrimination depending on how the store owner responded to the service request. There is a difference between refusing a cake and a refusing a person, and sometimes it can be difficult to understand the reasoning behind a person's actions, considering no one else can read that person's thoughts. Of course, from a constitutional standpoint, this poses an issue. The legality of the situation cannot be decided based on simply claim of intention because that is truly inadequate evidence. An individual with discriminatory beliefs could easy claim otherwise for a court. This is why it is important to draw a line for everybody, that way there is no gray area. Everyone has different beliefs and reasons for what they do, however I believe being discriminated against holds more weight as negativity than baking a cake for someone with different views. One of these is exclusion, the other is inclusion.
Post a Comment