Rhetorical Analysis

Thank you for your post. The reason I chose to include the cases are to show how the issue of a business owner refusing sexuality is becoming popular, and is being argued in court more. Many business owners are actually fine with giving their services to one of the opposite sex, however when that service is extended that goes against their beliefs, values, or morals then they have a problem with providing. Such as the case that I mentioned above, the State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers, where the florist served the couple many times but when asked provide a service for their wedding she refused as it goes against her faith. How do you propose we find a solution for this issue?

Phillips’ argued he would not sell a cake to the same-sex couple because it violated his freedom of religion and expression and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time. However, unlike other religious freedom cases, there was no clear infringement on religious freedom due to the fact that Phillips’ religion (Christianity) forbids same-sex couples from having relations, but does not directly forbid the endorsement of said relations (i.e. creating a cake for the ceremony).

Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2017), the Court will determine whether a baker can reject to provide a cake for a same-sex couple, despite Colorado’s law against discrimination based on sexual orientation. Jack Philips the owner of the cake shop has two arguments that the Free Exercise Clause grants “believers” a “freedom to live out their religious identity in the public square” and that Colorado is forcing him to create art that he finds morally wrong. Phillips’ attorney, Kristen Waggoner, argued that the government cannot compel speech by requiring people to create custom art in violation of their convictions. She was bound to get a hard hypothetical about a sincere baker turning down a cake for an interracial wedding, and Justice Kagan obliged. Waggoner responded that the Court has never upheld compelled speech in the race context, but that it might justify compelling speech in that context with a compelling interest. However, the argument that Phillips attorney is arguing does not draw a line between what is art and what is not. But although Justices Kagan and Breyer pushed Phillips’ attorneys on the cake’s expressive status, Justice Kennedy seemed likely to view many wedding-related artistic products as speech. Addressing Solicitor Francisco, Kennedy observed that “the problem for you is that so many of these wedding-related examples—and a photographer can be included—do involve

In the aftermath of the Supreme Court Case Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) which nationally legalized same sex marriage, the religious right has felt that protections on religious liberty in this country have gone under attack. As the LGBTQ+ movement gains more traction in mainstream media, local municipalities, and even state governments, many religiously conservative states legislatures have begun to fight back by passing laws that protect a person’s right to discriminate against the LGBTQ+ community because of religious objections. While a person’s right to abstain from participating in a business transaction concerning a same sex marriage has been widely debated (and continues to be widely debate) for some time now, the new anti-transgender

The baker in the article "Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage", by Adam Liptak, stated that his religion compels him to refuse to do the service of making a wedding cake for the same-sex couple. This type of reasoning encourages discrimination based on sexual orientation. According to the article "What does the 'right to refuse service' really mean?" by Kristen Hubby, "...the right to refuse service is controversial yet protected under the law because the act of refusing someone service—and the consequence of being refused—pit constitutional rights against each other" (5). Because the things that are written in the Constitution can be very vague, the people will be loosely interpreting one's rights giving them the ability to

In 2012, gay couple Craig and Mullins, asked Masterpiece Cakeshop, located in Colorado, to make them a wedding cake. The Owner, Jack Phillips, denied them the cake, saying that it went against his religion, Christianity. In response the couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, they filed discrimination based on sexual orientation, under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). This law prohibits businesses from discriminating against a person based on their race, religion, or sexual orientation. This resulted in the court case, Craig V. Masterpiece Cakeshop. In response to the case the Administrative Law Judge, wrote a response in support of Craig and Mullins.After hearing the facts, Colorado Civil Rights Commission sided with Craig and Mullins, saying that Phillips cannot deny service based on sexual orientation. As a result the cake shop was to make same- sex marriage wedding cakes, retrain their staff, and give quarterly reports.

In 2012, a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado and requested a cake for their wedding. The owner of the store declined to create a cake for the couple, stating he would not do so because of his religious beliefs. The couple filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and claimed they had been discriminated against based on sexual orientation. This case concerns the 14th and 1st amendments. The 14th amendment (and the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits discrimination against individuals based on items such as sexual orientation. Had the same-sex couple’s 14th amendment rights been violated because they had been refused service? Or, was the store owner using

The controversy between marriage equality and the exercise of religious freedom is a confliction between nondiscrimination laws and religious freedom laws. Religious freedom seemed to be an important aspect of an American citizen, after all it is the very first amendment to the constitution. With each American citizen being granted equality by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, discrimination made against an individual based on his/her sexual preference may seem to violate this act. In history, religious organizations typically been immune from state and local laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation. However, with the cases of Obergefell v. Hodges and Kim Davis this stance is challenged.

Colorado baker Jack Phillips, “Washington State florist Barronelle Sutzman, Kentucky printer Blaine Adamson, Illinois bed & breakfast owners Jim and Beth Walder, and New York family farm owners Robert and Cynthia Gifford,” all have something in common (Wolf). Besides all being owners of a business, they also seem to “believe that their religious objections are paramount” (Wolf). Nonetheless, their religious objections do not give them the right to discriminate or to refuse their services to same sex-couples.

The case of The Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado will be argued in court later on this year. This case revolves around the gay couple, Craig and Mullens, who attempted to order a wedding cake for their celebration. To their dismay, the cake shop owner refused to service the couple. Phillips stated that he did not want to design a cake for a same sex couple. Unfortunately, his actions were illegal in the state of Colorado, or were they? Feeling that Phillips had violated their civil rights, the couple filed a complaint against Phillips, the shop owner, with the Civil Rights Commission. The complaint stated that Phillips had violated their rights by refusing to service them solely because they were a same sex couple. Phillips was ordered

The baker did not give a rejection on the basis of the Charging party's sexual orientation but, on his own religious beliefs. He refused because, "creating cakes for same-sex marriages would go against his...belief...taught in the bible" (McIntyre). His refusal to not make the cake for the same-sex couple is backed by the "First Amendment's guarantees of free speech and free religion exercise" which "he says prohibit Colorado from compelling him to make cakes that violate his conscience" (S.M.). He does not only exclude same-sex couple wedding

Supreme Court case “Masterpiece Cakeshop vs. Colorado Civil Rights Commission,” came before the Court in December of 2017. (Can A Baker) In this case, a gay couple walked into a cake shop looking for a cake for their wedding. The shop owner, Jack Phillips, who was morally opposed to homosexuality, refused to make them a wedding cake. Under the protection of the United States Constitution, should he have been allowed to decline his services? Yes. By denying these people a wedding cake, he was not discriminating against them because of their beliefs. His service was going to be used explicitly for something that he found morally unacceptable; he had every right under the Constitution to deny his

The law forbids the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation however, this is too broad and does not state the amount of discrimination needed in order to violate the law. Significantly similar to the Brandenburg vs ohio case in which Brandenburg made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." However, the supreme court found this unconstitutional and stated that states can only restrict speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action." Due to the fact that the bakery shop owners speech was not inciting or producing imminent lawless action and did not prove to be danger too the same sex couple, he had the right to free speech and was protected by the first amendment. In addition to this, the Accommodation law violates the free religious exercise of the shop owner because he feels given his religious beliefs making the cake for the same sex couple would be extremely wrong since homosexuality is a sin in his

On one side of the issue, one can find those who believe that businesses must be required by law to provide goods and services to LGBT people upon request. According to this paradigm, a bakery must provide a wedding cake to an interracial couple regardless of how much that business opposes interracial marriage. A fundamental part of this point of view is the argument from Civil Rights. In short, these laws that require businesses to serve all “ensure that people previously subject to discrimination can go about their day to day life, without worrying whether they will be turned away from a store because of who they are (ACLU Staff).” Under the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it is illegal for businesses to refuse service to any individual on the basis of “race, color, religion, sex or national origin (History.com Staff).” In the case of Masterpiece v. Colorado, Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act bars public accommodations from denying service to individuals based on their race, religion, sexual orientation, and more (One Colorado). In

In a hypothetical scenario in which same-sex marriage and religious freedom are brought to a legal confrontation, the constitutional rights of both plaintiffs and defendants bring forth a nationwide debate on civil liberties and rights—yet it is easy to mistake one for the other. In this scenario, after lesbian couples Donna and Theodora married in the state of Massachusetts instead of North Carolina (Theodora’s home state), both decided to move to North Carolina in the city of Clinton where they found jobs to financially support one another. However, when both couples contacted a local bakery shop for a wedding cake, they were denied by the shop’s owner who cited North Carolina’s recently enacted law that allows businesses to refuse the patronage of homosexuals when the business owners themselves have a religious objection to homosexuality and same-sex marriage. When Donna and Theodora tried to hire a photographer for when they planned to recite their wedding vows, the photographer refused—with the issue of religious freedom again been cited in her arguments. Although this initially didn’t come as a surprise to Donna and Theodora, Donna was more concerned about the maid of honor, Bernice, a transgender person being able to use the women’s restroom. Because Bernice was born male, under the rules of House Bill 2—more formally addressed as the Public Facilities Privacy and Security Act (aka “the bathroom bill”)—that would exclude Bernice from using the bathroom of her choice