1
Constitution and Religion
Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course
Date
2
Constitution and Religion
As time moves, the U.S government is observed to have banked much on ruling that
touches on biblical concepts. The courts have resorted to valuing biblical ideas while making
decisions. Perhaps the decision to involve or include bibles is meant to create a ground where a
fair trial is completed. Since individuals are naturally attracted to the overall position of their
behaviour, the need for the biblical concept is fulfilled during any decision-making process. For
example, the case of Obergefell v Hodges is an excellent example of the cases that needed
biblical intervention while reading the verdict. The case involves marital affairs, which serve as
an example of biblical ways of life. From the point, which touches on the LBTQ persons, it is
necessary to evaluate religious concepts to provide a better ruling. However, in the case of
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. (2018), there is difficulty
in giving a verdict about what transpired about couples of the same sex. This paper addresses
how religion and the constitution have worked in unison to provide a better justice system in the
U.S.
Part 1
Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644 (2015)
The Supreme Court of the United States held in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. 644
(2015) a significant decision for Transgender rights. However, these partners have a
constitutional right to be married under the Equal Defense and Right to a fair trial Clauses of the
Fourteenth Amendment. According to the 5-4 decision, same-sex unions must be performed and
recognized in all jurisdictions. These has been practiced in District of Columbia, and the Insular
Territories under identical settings as partnerships between opposite-sex partners with all of the
3
privileges and obligations that go along with them (Leonard, 2021). Before Obergefell, same-sex
marriages were legalized in local government areas including the District of Columbia, and
Guam had practiced legislation, judicial decisions, or popular initiatives on the relevant matter.
Applicants in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky, and Tennessee initiated stay of proceedings
suits during January 2012 and February 2014, which resulted in Obergefell v. Hodges. The Sixth
Circuit subsequently challenged most state judges' decisions in favour of the respondents. Many
court decisions about same-gender marriage restrictions at the state governments were
constituted unlawful in 2014 by same Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, and Tenth Chambers. The Sixth
decision was concluded in October. It was constrained by Baker v. Nelson and deemed similar
restrictions legal. Appeals became divided as a result, and the Supreme Court reviewed the case.
Obergefell, a decision made on June 26, 2015, reversed Baker and mandates that all
countries provide civil unions to same-sex spouses or acknowledge same-sex marriages legally
consummated in several areas of the Law. This legalized same-sex unions across the country and
its regions (Matoaka, 2021). The Court looked at the scope of the fundamental freedoms that the
Law permits to everyone and the actual damage caused to people by deferring the integration of
these kinds of constitutional protections. In contrast, the electoral vote performs, and the
advancing comprehension of mishandling and disparity has been moving objects since Baker in
the most significant group decision written by Justice Anthony Kennedy.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
The dispute involved Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Lakewood, Colorado bakery that declined
to create a unique cupcake for same-sex genders to consume during their wedding. The refusal
was done following the eruption of the owner's religious convictions that could not allow them to
4
proceed (Steenson, 2019). The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, the countries generally pro-
law, was used by the Colorado American Civil Liberties Union to investigate the matter. The
panel imposed specific directives for the bakery after concluding that it had prejudiced towards
the pair. After internal challenges resulted in the Commission's verdict against the bakery being
upheld, the bakery appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. In a 7-2 judgment, the Court held that
the Agency's lack of belief in impartiality violated Jack Phillips's freedom of expression and
concluded that the Commission's sentence should have been overturned. Due to the difficulties
arising from the Commission's lack of religious impartiality, the Council refrained from deciding
on the more general junction of pro-government statutes, the practice of religion, and the right to
freedom.
The case's facts
Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a Colorado-based same-sex spouse, decided to legally
wed in Massachusetts in 2012 and then travel back to Colorado to rejoice alongside their loved
ones. Colorado's establishment at the period forbade same-sex unions. Still, by 2014 the
government had changed its stance, and the Highest Court in the U.S eventually ruled in
Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. 644 that homosexual couples have a constitutional ability to GET
MARRIED IN 2015.
In July 2012, Craig and Mullins went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood,
Colorado, to purchase a dessert for the welcome-back party. Jack Phillips, the Christian
proprietor of Masterpiece, turned down the child's demand for a confection and told them that
due to the perfect church denomination convictions, Masterpiece failed to find cake moulded to
assist during the wedding ceremony for commemorating weddings of same-gender couples
5
(McIntosh, 2018). However, they could buy alternative sweet treats from the shop instead.
Before negotiating the specifics of the birthday cake with Phillips, Craig and Mullins abruptly
abandoned him. The following morning, when Craig's grandmother Deborah Munn phoned
Phillip, she informed her that due to his religious convictions and the fact that Colorado failed
to acknowledge same-sex marriages, Masterpiece could not bake baked goods for homosexual
individuals' nuptials.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission
both asked the Supreme Court to deny the petition because of concern that a ruling favourable to
the company might result in a "huge wound" in religiously-based human rights statutes.
In 2016 the final arguments just at the appellate phase were filed. Court cases were conducted in
2017, ever since the Court decided to pursue charges in the 2017 term.
Part 11
These decisions in light of America's constitutional history
From the record of what has gone down in history about the decisions the U.S has made
related to the two cases above, it is evident that a lot has been recorded. Therefore, American
constitutional history has undergone severe changes that would eventually lead to the proper set
of improvements in various life instances (Corrigan & Hudson, 2018). The constitution of
America has adjusted its course in satisfying its clients. The state has realized the importance of
religion and has since emulated the tendency to incorporate the extent of touching its concepts to
deliver a verdict. The U.S has, therefore, made a more significant step in realizing the
importance of religion in the regions by recognizing them during a court process. For example,
6
when people marry, they tend to do so by emulating the extent of religious factors. Seemingly,
the current American considers the ceremonies and values them to the brim.
These decisions in light of the Christian foundations of America
When the decisions in the two cases above were made, the government of the U.S,
through the Court, tried to consider religion. However, even though they developed the concern
to produce the results regarding religion, at this point, they messed up. Christianity does not
support marriages of the same gender. Therefore, any decision that purports to help LBTQ
couples erases all the desire and need for the existence of Christianity. However, some funny
religions are emerging that would have a hand in the processes and thus be considered
meaningful.
These decisions in light of specific Constitutional principles
Every decision follows a specific principle. Decisions are usually based on the
constitution, but sometimes it is elastic and can stretch past the average point. For example, when
the decision about the Masterpiece was made, the Court relied much on current affairs and what
could lead to the involvement quick solution. The same case is evident in Obergefell v. Hodges,
576 U.S. 644 (2015). Therefore, the specific constitutional principles here are that decisions are
made based on facts.
These decisions in light of specific methods of Constitutional adjudication
The specific methods of constitutional adjudication applied in these cases are the inclination to
follow voluntarily. In the case of Masterpiece, the judges made a ruling with a perception of
7
preference. The legal team did not venture much into the constitution but weighed the
repercussion of the decision they were about to deliver, thus ending up with that specific one.
In conclusion, religion and the constitution in the U.S. are now becoming two dependable
operating systems. The U.S. Constitution has vested much into the aspect of involving
constitutional matters regarding the giving verdicts. Through that, most decisions have favoured
individuals since they embrace the art of examining human consequences before judgment is
given, thus saving people from unnecessary pressure.
References
Corrigan, J., & Hudson, W. S. (2018). Religion in America. Routledge.
8
Leonard, A. S. (2021). Nevada Supreme Court Holds Obergefell Requires Retroactive
Recognition of Out-of-State Same-Sex Marriages (but Not Civil Unions) for Community
Property Purposes.
Matouka, P. (2021). The Fundamental Right to Biological Integrity. Wayne L. Rev., 67, 57.
McIntosh, J. (2018). Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Docket
No 16-111: Supreme Court of the USA: Kennedy J joined by Roberts CJ, Breyer, Alito,
Kagan, Gorsuch JJ; Kagan J concurring joined by Breyer J; Gorsuch J concurring joined
by Alito J; Thomas J concurring in part and as to judgment joined by Gorsuch J;
Ginsburg J dissenting joined by Sotomayor J: June 4 2018. Oxford Journal of Law and
Religion, 7(3), 574-575.
Steenson, M. (2019). Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights
Commission. Mitchell Hamline L. Rev., 45, 57.
