The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) last month, sends a message: freedom to discriminate because of what one’s religion dictates is more important than a same-sex couple’s right to equality and dignity.
On June 4, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado baker Jack Phillips had been treated unfairly based on his religion by the CCRC. The CCRC initially ruled that Phillips’ refusal to bake a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a gay couple, violated Colorado state law, but the Supreme Court’s decision overturned the CCRC’s ruling.
The Supreme Court’s ruling establishes that while same-sex couples are free to marry and be viewed as equal under the law, this freedom does not overrule the rights of those with personal or religious objections to same-sex unions. According to the majority opinion, the Supreme Court felt that Phillips’ religion was treated with hostility.
However, this decision does not pay adequate attention to the fact that Phillips was initially brought before the CCRC because he treated a member of a protected class—that is, an identifiable group protected by law against discrimination—with hostility.
By refusing to bake a cake for a couple because they were to be man and man, not man and wife, Phillips’ actions show a clear discriminatory bias towards a group of people who are meant to be protected from discrimination under Colorado law. With its ruling that same-sex couples can have their rights ignored because of religious convictions, the Supreme Court has created a dangerous and troubling slippery slope.
If one kind of discrimination on religious grounds is acceptable, then why not others? If a baker cited their religion as grounds to refuse to bake a cake for a mixed-race couple, would that be acceptable? What about a couple with disabilities? Or, outside the realm of pastries and cakes, could a surgeon refuse to perform a life-saving emergency operation on a gay person because they believed that homosexuality was a sin?
The answer to all these questions should be no.
That is not to say that religious convictions are not deeply important, and that they should not be protected under law. The free exercise of religion is guaranteed under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
That same amendment, however, should not guarantee that one individual’s religious rights can trump another’s right to live free from discrimination—or, in the case of Mullins and Craig, the right to shop for a wedding cake.
I agree that private businesses should have the right to refuse service to individuals—they are, after all, private. Having a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” sign in your window is hardly grounds to be taken to court.
However, private businesses should not be allowed to discriminate against people who are supposed to be protected from discrimination by law.
For the same reason that there are no longer whites-only water fountains and universities that exclusively accept men, Phillips should not be allowed to refuse to serve Mullins and Craig because his interpretation of the Bible tells him their marriage is morally wrong.
I am not trying to assert that Phillips must agree with Mullins and Craig’s decision to get married.
I am arguing that despite his disagreement, he should have to bake them a cake for their special day.
