Link to Article
Five years ago, gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered the bakery of Jack Phillips, hoping to buy a wedding cake for their upcoming marriage. Phillips refused, as his religion does not support homosexuality. Craig and Mullins decided to sue, and two court hearings took place at different times, both of them resulting in a victory for Craig and Mullins.
Next week, this case goes the Supreme Court. The Court will have to make a tough decision that will likely establish exactly how far the First Amendment goes, by judging whether or not Phillips' actions were acceptable. They will have to decide what goes further, the constitutional right to free speech and religion, or the state law that prohibits discrimination by sexual orientation.
I believe that Phillips should have the right to refuse his services to this couple, because of his inherent right to freedom of speech and religion. Although his beliefs may offend some people, the truth is that forcing him to bake the cake would violate his constitutional rights.
Discussion Questions:
Do you believe that Phillips should have the right to refuse his services to this couple? Why or why not?
What is your prediction on what the Supreme Court's decision will be in this case?
9 comments:
I believe that the court will rule in favor of the gay couple. Anthony Kennedy sided with the four liberals justices in Hodges, so it is likely that he personally believes that the two men should get the wedding cake. He also doesn't seem to be a capitalistic libertarian, so I doubt that he will ignore his personal beliefs in order to protect the decision of a business owner from government interference.
Contrary to what Harrison said, I think that the court will rule in favor of the business. Yes, it sucks that the couple was denied service, however, it is the business' "right to deny service to anyone." The bakery's owner also has rights, and it may sound like discrimination, however, since the owner has his own religious beliefs, he should not get in trouble for following his way of life. Also,I know that there are a ton of other bakeries that would gladly take the couple's service.
I agree with Gabby, I think that the court will rule in favor of Phillips. As much as I would like to believe that being gay shouldn't play a role in buying a cake, I think it is hard to deny ones right to "deny service to anyone." The owner of the bakery has his own religious beliefs and so he will probably win the courts decision.
I think that Phillips can refuse if they want to. Just because some people do not agree with homosexuality does not mean that they need to be sued. Just go buy another cake from somewhere else.
I also agree that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of the baker. Phillips most likely had no intention of denying this couple a cake, but because it went against his religious values, he felt as if he had to. As much as I believe in equal rights for everyone, no matter race, sexuality, religion, etc, freedom of speech protects Phillips and I believe the Supreme Court will recognize that.
I am in agreement with the comments above. Although the two court hearings before resulted in the victory for Craig and Mullins, I believe the Supreme Court will uphold the first amendment right of the baker Phillips. Honestly, I understand that the gay couple must feel discriminated against, however, they can't change what everyone thinks of their marriage. People are allowed to hold their own opinions and the baker has the right to hold his own religious beliefs. Also, I feel like I have seen multiple businesses/restaurants that have a sign saying they hold the right to refuse service to anyone and I don't see why this case would be much different. I also agree with Gabby in that although this sucks for the gay couple, there are many alternative bakeries that will serve the couple.
I'm in agreement with the majority of people here-and not only will the SCOTUS most likely rule in favor of Phillips, they have a responsibility to do so.
In millions of establishments across the country, business owners hang a sign: "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone." And our capitalist democracy allows those business owners to do that. Our society and economy is build on consent-namely, the right to consent to business and social exchanges. This is especially why our society frowns on things like rape, theft, fraud, and slavery-in all of those instances, somebody is striping away their victims' capacity to consent. In this instance, a gay couple consented to pay a bakery, but the bakery did not consent to bake that couple a wedding cake. Therefore, the exchange of that bakers' goods for that couples' money did not occur. As a result, the couple would go to a competing bakery which is more than happy to bake the couple a wedding cake, regardless of who the bride and groom (or groom and groom...or bride and bride) are. Simple, right? The free market both encourages diversity and consent between everyone involved. However, the left would tell you that not only is the baker a bad person for following his beliefs and values, but that he should be forced by the government to bake a cake for the gay couple. If the left had their way, the free market, the right to personal values, and the very notion of consent itself would be undermined-all through an act of cohersion, which for our society is a capital sin.
It’s really difficult to say whether or not someone can (legally) refuse services to a customer because owners typically can run their business how they want to. However, I think it is extremely immoral to deny someone services because of their sexual orientation, and it parallels denying someone services because of the color of their skin (which was ruled unconstitutional, mind you). I agree with Gabby that the defendent may call up on the RFRA and say that it violates his religious practices to serve a gay couple. However, since there is so much controversy surrounding whether or not there is any tangible wording in the Bible that condemns homosexuality, this may not be a strong case (but then again, there certainly isn’t any talking about contraception but the Supreme Court still ruled in favor of Hobby Lobby).
While people do have the right to deny service to anyone they please, I believe that it is wrong to deny any person a service because of their sexual orientation. Because both sides argue that their freedom is infringed upon, it is important to recognize that not everyone shares the same views and trying to change the views of another person is wrong in itself. I think that the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Mr. Phillips because nobody is obligated to believe in something that they don’t believe in as this goes against the 14th Amendment and First Amendment.
Post a Comment