Discu

A baker in Colorado, by the name Jack Phillips in the year 2012 despised the order to prepare a cake to his client who was of same-sex, claiming that the serving them it’s a contradiction to his religious beliefs (Liptak, 2018). Afterward, Masterpieces Cakeshop was sued by the client who was a gay couple for his refusal to serve them. According to the Colorado’s Public Accommodations regulations and law the gay couple file a case that Jack Phillip discriminated against them bases on their sexual orientations which the law forbids (Liptak, 2018). Phillip contended that besides making the cake it was the mandate of his shop to design a message that would lead to violation of freedom of speech upon which the shop was required to display (Liptak, 2018). Thus Phillip did not embrace the idea or message and his involvement was contrary to his faith as well as rights in the freedom of religion and hence he decided to turn down the request made.

Reflecting on Colorado’s laws that forbid discrimination used on the cases of Masterpieces Cakeshop, it was argued that free speech has nothing to do with the laws forbidding discrimination regarding sexual orientation. Therefore the Colorado Civil Rights Commission argument was different from the one Supreme Court stated (Liptak, 2018). According to the Supreme Court stated they appreciate Phillip's effort and services to everyone who presents a request to the store although promoting a message which would violate Philip's first amendment was wrong. Thus the Supreme Court commented on the necessities that upon deciding any matter concerning the First Amendment would apply to all irrespective of their belief or marriage (Liptak, 2018).

Supreme Court wrote that the set regulations, Laws, as well as Constitution, works to some extent towards protecting gay persons, as a way to practice and enjoy their civil rights, nevertheless philosophical together with religious oppositions to same-sex marriages are safeguarded opinions as well as to some extent forms of expressions being protected (Liptak, 2018). Proving that according to the Supreme Court and the set constitution forcing the Philip to prepare the cake to the client gay couple was would not be the right approach since it would contribute to the violations of his rights dictated by freedom of religion as well as freedom of speech (Liptak, 2018). According to the Supreme Court laws, the Colorado Law on forbidding discrimination of individuals as per their sexual orientations was unconstitutional. The ruling was made in favor of the Jack Phillip thus his rights as baker demonstrated on how he responded to the situation faced with was well protected by the constitution.

Justice Ginsburg's opinion regarding the Masterpieces Cakeshop case was a relevant example of dissenting opinion. In such an opinion, one or more judges oppose what has been passed by the court as per the majority’s opinion. Jack Phillip's opinion was back up by the majority of the Supreme Court members which was different thought to the Ginsburg (Liptak, 2018). Justice Ginsburg stated otherwise in opposition to the Supreme Court stated that at the request made by Mullins and Craig they were in quest of the wedding cake a product that would add flavor to their wedding celebrations, nevertheless as thought by Phillip that it would promote same-sex wedding, and thus the couple’s request being refuted served as denial to a service (Liptak, 2018). These kinds of opinion was a dissenting one upon whose point was clear that even although other couples request a cake for their wedding it’s not upon promoting same-sex marriages but making the event or marriage celebration lively (Liptak, 2018). According to Justice Ginsburg's opinion, Phillip was supposed to serve the gay couple and meet their cake request for their marriage, without discrimination.

The topic of discrimination is contented on both sides, where the government takes over the essential side of the viewpoints made. The line between the discrimination and First amendment should be drawn upon the Supreme Court decision since irrespective of set restrictions based on the discrimination they might be disregarded or less consider if they offend the First amendment (Levy, 2017). Whereby such limitation will be considered as probably unconstitutional (Levy, 2017). For instance, the Court may hold a certain viewpoint about discrimination as a horrific free speech violation of rights. A case involving Jack Philip is a good example where even though discrimination law was violated in his action his opinion was considered favorable due to the religious perspective and freedom of speech.