Religious Liberty
Which is more important, one's constitutional right to practice their religion or
somebody's right to marriage? This is the question that was posed in the case of Masterpiece
Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).
In this paper we will be discussing two cases. The first being Obergefell v. Hodges
(2015). A case that defined if same sex marriage is constitutional. This will help answer thee
question from Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018).
Obergefell v. Hodges
According to (Cornell Law School, 2013) in the case of Obergefell v. Hodges, 14
same-sex couples and 2 men who husbands had died filed a claim against their respective
states' officials who they believed had violated the Fourteenth Amendment by denying them
the right to marry or to have marriages lawfully performed in another State given full
recognition. While the district court ruled in favor of the couples, the Sixth Circuit
consolidated the cases and reversed. It was stated that the history of marriage as a union has
between two persons of the opposite sex. Some believe that it would demean a timeless
institution of marriage were extended to same sex couples. This is the opposite of what the
same sex couples wanted. They just wanted to have the same rights as a union has between
two persons of the opposite sex. The Fourteenth Amendment required a State to license a
marriage between two people of the same sex. It was stated that the Due Process Clause of
the fourteenth amendment extends to certain personal choices central to individual dignity
and autonomy, including intimate choices defining personal identity and beliefs. In assessing
whether the force and rationale of its cases apply to same-sex couples, the Court must respect
the basic reasons why the right to marry has been long protected. This analysis compels the
conclusion that same-sex couples may exercise the right to marry. The found that the right to
marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process
and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex couples
may not be deprived of that constitutional right or their liberties. With this decision same-sex
couples were free to exercise their constitutional right to marriage.
My informed Analysis of Obergefell v. Hodges
According to (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.) “Efforts to legalize same-sex marriage
began to pop up across the country in the 1990s, and with it challenges on the state and national
levels.” This can be seen in the almost three-decade long fight that same sex couple have had
gain the same right as opposite sex couples. (Human Rights Campaign, n.d.) continued by stating
“At the federal level, couples were denied access to more than 1,100 federal rights and
responsibilities associated with the institution, as well as those denied by their given state.” Why
is the information stated above important to the case of Obergefell v. Hodges? The reason is
these shows how same sex marriage were treated up to that point. Mostly due to their sexual
preference. Just like in Obergefell v. Hodge itself these acts can be seen as this institutions and
states depriving these same sex couples of not only their fourteenth amendment but also their
first amendment that protects their freedom of expression. According to (McClellan, n.d.)
“Individual freedom of choice in many things, personal privacy, and opportunity for success in
many walks of life are made possible by a political system that takes heed of the dignity of the
human person and looks upon the state as designed for the advancement and protection of that
person.” This can be inferred by the court's decision in Obergefell v. Hodge. How was
Obergefell v. Hodge view from a religious standpoint? According to (Walsh, 2019) “Many
believe the Obergefell decision undermined marriage in the United States and ran contrary to the
laws of God, while others feel that the institution of marriage was enhanced and was entirely
consistent with God's love for all.”
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
According to (Chemerinsky, 2017) Charlie Craig and David Mullins got married in
Massachusetts and wanted to celebrate their wedding where they lived in Colorado. In July 2012,
they went to a local bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, a limited liability company in Colorado, and
sought to purchase a wedding cake. The owner, Jack Phillips, refused to design and bake the
cake, saying that gay marriage violated his religious beliefs. He said that he would be implicitly
complicit in violation of his religion if he were to design and bake the cake for the couple. The
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits businesses from discriminating based on race,
gender, religion, or sexual orientation. The law provides: “It is a discriminatory practice and
unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or
a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national
origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges,
advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation.” Craig and Mullins filed a
discrimination complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop and Phillips in September 2012, shortly
after the couple’s visit to the shop. The Colorado Civil Rights Division found probable cause that
Phillips violated the Act and referred the case to the state’s Civil Rights Commission. On
Monday, June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed in a 7–2 decision. Justice Kennedy
wrote for the Court; only Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. The
Court did not reach the central issues of the case: Would it violate free exercise of religion or
freedom of speech under the First Amendment to force Masterpiece Cakeshop to design and
bake a cake for a same-sex wedding? Instead, the Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights
Commission had expressed impermissible hostility to religion and thus violated the free exercise
clause of the First Amendment. Justice Kennedy wrote: “The Civil Rights Commission’s
treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere
religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”
My informed Analysis of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, from a constitutional
and discriminatory point of view, both parties have valid objections. For Jack Phillips, it is his
first amendment right, The right to religious freedom, verses Charlie Craig and David Mullins
fourteenth amendment, Due to the ruling of Obergefell v. Hodge. However, this was only what it
seemed like on the surface. The reason I state this is because Jack Phillips did not refuse to serve
Charlie Craig and David Mullins due him not liking them for being in a same sex marriage,
which is considered discrimination. As stated in the case “The owner, Jack Phillips, refused to
design and bake the cake, saying that gay marriage violated his religious beliefs. He said that he
would be implicitly complicit in violation of his religion if he were to design and bake the cake.”
He did, however, offer to sell them one of his premade cakes instead. This showed he was still
willing to serve them his product. (McClellan, n.d.) has stated “Civil rights for all citizens are
jealously guarded by the Constitution, and effective measures are taken to make sure that no one
will suffer solely because of his race, sex, or religion.” This showed that Jack Phillips may not
have been able to offer them all his serves, due to his religious beliefs, he still was willing to
serve them like any other customer.
Conclusion
Throughout this paper you can determine that not only can you answer the question,
which is more important, one's constitutional right to practice their religion or somebody's right
to marriage? You should also be starting to understand how sometimes one constitutional right
may be up for interpretation but may not overwrite another. You should also be able to produce
your own opinion
References
Chemerinsky, E. (2017). Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece
Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Americanbar.org.
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/
the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/
Cornell Law School. (2013). Obergefell v. Hodges. LII / Legal Information Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556
Human Rights Campaign. (n.d.). The Journey to Marriage Equality in the United States. Human
Rights Campaign. https://www.hrc.org/our-work/stories/the-journey-to-marriage-
equality-in-the-united-states
McClellan, J. (n.d.). Liberty, Order, and Justice | Online Library of Liberty. Oll.libertyfund.org.
https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/mcclellan-liberty-order-and-justice#lf0088_head_264
Walsh, J. T. J. (2019). Religion and Marriage: The Implications for Today’s State Family Codes.
Family Advocate, 42(2), 6–10. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27006934#:~:text=Many
%20believe%20the%20Obergefell%20decision
Trott-Murphy, Raizhaun. Religious Liberty 18 Aug 2023 Liberty Universtiy, unpublished paper
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
