The question of whether or not it is legal to refuse service to a gay person or couple because of their sexual orientation has become a major topic of debate in recent years. The United States Supreme Court recently ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple, citing religious beliefs. This ruling has left many wondering about their rights when it comes to denying services to the LGBTQ community. While the Supreme Court ruling is limited to the specific case, it does open the door for people to use religious beliefs to deny services to gays and lesbians. However, it is important to note that most states have laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, and refusal of service to a gay couple may very well be illegal in many states. This article discusses the legal implications when it comes to denying service to gays and lesbians, and how to determine if it’s legal or not in your state.
Contents
Why did the Supreme Court rule in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop?
In a decision in favor of the couple, the Commission found that Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner violated state law on public lodging by refusing service based on the couple’s sexual orientation. The Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the decision and the Colorado Supreme Court refused to review it.
The recent Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission case has drawn attention to the issue of coerced speech, as well as its relationship to the First Amendment. In their opinion, Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil M. Gorsuch ruled that it was illegal to force a baker to bake a cake. This view may be supported by the recent ruling in Lochner v. New York, in which the Court found that New York had overstepped its jurisdiction in attempting to regulate the working hours of bakery employees. A state cannot have unlimited power over the lives of its citizens, and such decisions must be based on evidence that they are in line with public health, the court said. In summary, coerced speech is a violation of the First Amendment and should be avoided.
Victory for Religious Freedom: Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling
A recent Supreme Court ruling overturned the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s decision to deny Jack Phillips a permit to make a wedding cake. According to the Court, forcing the baker to make a cake inconsistent with his beliefs violated his First Amendment right to freedom of speech. In particular, this ruling raises the question of whether companies are allowed to discriminate against customers on the basis of religious beliefs. According to religious freedom advocates, Masterpiece Cakeshop’s decision was a victory for religious freedom because it allowed business owners to refuse service to customers based on their religious beliefs. An important difference between this ruling and previous decisions is that it does not give companies the right to discriminate against other protected classes. The Court made it clear that it considered coerced speech a viable issue and that other state anti-discrimination laws would not be affected. As a result, the Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling is a turning point in the ongoing debate over religious freedom. It does not provide a broader legal framework for companies to discriminate against customers based on their religious beliefs, nor does it give business owners the legal authority to refuse service to those who violate their religious beliefs.
What Happened in the Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Case?
The actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in evaluating the bakery owner‘s reasons for refusing to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the free exercise clause, the court ruled and overturned a 7-2 decision.
Supreme Court reminds us that discrimination is still very much alive
In a decision taken earlier this month, the Supreme Court of the United States overturned Colorado’s decision to deny Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, a marriage license. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ordered the baker to bake pies for same-sex couples, he was declared unconstitutional for engaging in protected religious expression and exercising his right to free speech. Chief Judge Alan Loeb, Justices Daniel Taubman, Michael Berger and Daniel Rabinovitz all agreed on the ruling. Jack Phillips, Mary Jo’s husband, isn’t alone in thinking the win is undeserved; however, same-sex couples aren’t the only ones feeling the sense of relief. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission had not violated the Colorado Civil Rights Act, only the Colorado Supreme Court’s freedom of speech and freedom of religion. Overall, the decision did not address the underlying issue of discrimination against same-sex couples. The Supreme Court’s Masterpiece Cakeshop ruling is a reminder that discrimination, however minor, still exists in this country. This is a reminder that the fight for equality is far from over. It would have been better if the ruling had been against the baker, but it didn’t address the larger issue of discrimination against gays and lesbians. As a result, we are engaged in a struggle for equality.
Janice has been with businesskinda for 5 years, writing copy for client websites, blog posts, EDMs and other mediums to engage readers and encourage action. By collaborating with clients, our SEO manager and the wider businesskinda team, Janice seeks to understand an audience before creating memorable, persuasive copy.