Discu

In 2012, Jack Philips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, refused to make a wedding cake for a Gay couple because of his religious faith. According to the New York Times, Mr. Phillips stated to the couple, “That he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for same-sex marriage which was at odds with his religious faith’’ (2018). This decision upset the gay couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, so they filed a sexual discrimination complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission. The Civil Rights commission ruled that Philips did violate Colorado’s anti-discrimination act. Jack Philips appealed the decision, which the case landed in the United States supreme court. In the end, the United States Supreme Court sided with Phillips because of the First Amendment Bill of Rights. I feel that Jack Philips had every right to protect his religious views as an American citizen and that Mullins and Craig’s claim of discrimination had no legal ground.

Mr. Philips’ actions in denying service of a wedding cake to Mullins and Craig was constitutional because it is an exercise of his religious right guaranteed by the First Amendment Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights was established two hundred and sixty-nine years ago in 1751. The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights was established before Colorado’s Anti- Discrimination Act and is the foundation of the act and of the rights of all citizens of the United States. This series of acts protects the basic rights of American citizens in the United States. The First Amendment gives citizens the right to religious freedom. It is the foundation of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act established in 1957.

There is a fine line between religious liberty and discrimination. According to the Article, “Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig said they were humiliated by Mr. Phillips’s refusal to serve them, and they filed a complaint with Colorado’s Civil Rights Commission, saying that Mr. Phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientation” (2018). Phillips refusal was to make a wedding cake for Mullins and Craig not refusal of service. Mr. Philips offered the couple other baked goods besides a wedding cake. Mr. Philips’ refusal was solely based on the occasion of a wedding, which in his eyes was a religious sacrament. Had Mr. Phillips refused the couple any service because of their sexual preference, not just the wedding cake, then that refusal would be considered discriminatory and grounds for being unconstitutional.

In fact, he also turned down to make wedding cakes to other gay couples on different occasions in the past. After turning down a client, the gay couple called Philips to let him know they understood and respected his decision. Phillips had many gay clients and treated them all equally and often still willing to serve them other kinds of baked goods besides wedding cakes. Mr. Phillip's refusal to make a wedding cake for Mullins and Craig is clearly because of his religious beliefs and not because of discrimination on the basis of sexual preference. Philips has every right to protect his religious views as an American citizen.

Overall, the Phillips’ actions were constitutional because he consistently acted to protect his own religious freedom and did not discriminate against Mullins and Craig for their sexuality or because of their sexual preference. Phillips was happy to sell them baked goods, just not a wedding cake. Furthermore, Phillips’ actions were consistent with other gay couples. In other words, he did not make wedding cakes for any of them however he was happy to sell them other baked goods. Phillips’ actions Overall, the Phillips’ actions were constitutional because he consistently acted to protect his own religious freedom and did not discriminate against Mullins and Craig for their sexuality or because of their sexual preference. Phillips was happy to sell them baked goods, just not a wedding cake. Furthermore, Phillips’ actions were consistent with other gay couples. In other words, he did not make wedding cakes for any of them however he was happy to sell them other baked goods. Phillips’ actions were not unconstitutional because he consistently acted to protect his own religious freedom.