1
Research Paper: Religious Liberty Assignment
Kailyn Pyle
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
GOVT 421: American Constitutional History
Dr. Tamara Reid-McIntosh
December 16, 2022
2
Introduction
The United States of America is supposed to be the land of liberty and freedom, but for
many it feels so unsafe that it’s crippling, and it feels so unfair that its enraging. As a young
woman, I am terrified about the future and well-being of our government and country. The next
generation is coming of age to be elected to government, and we will remember all the instances
the older generation made monumental mistakes, especially minorities, women, and the LGBTQ
community.
The United States was built on religious fundamentals when the Constitution was written
in 1787. Although there is freedom of religion in the U.S., there needs to be a bigger emphasis on
the separation of church and state. It’s been proven time and time again that American politicians
who are very religious impose their beliefs unto the rest of the population who don’t have the
same views or has an extremely biased view of certain political issues. When in fact, politicians
are supposed to remain unbiased in decision making. For example, Roe v. Wade was overturned
by a majority conservative Christian Supreme Court after being implemented for over fifty years.
Along with abortion, same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, and contraceptives are all being
called upon constitutional review because some Chief Justices believe it’s not a constitutional
right, and that it’s against the Bible (God’s word).
To put things into perspective, the United States is the only well-developed and semi-
religious country that is taking rights away from women, and the human right to love who you
want to love without facing discrimination and/or consequences. The world has changed
significantly since 1787, we now live in the 21st century where at least half of the United States
population doesn’t believe in the Bible or isn’t as religious as other individuals. There is
absolutely no excuse for a country that is as well-developed and as successful to be arguing
3
about whether same-sex marriage, interracial marriage, abortion, and contraceptives is a
violation of a constitution written two-hundred and thirty-five years ago. We should be more
worried about human rights violations than our outdated constitution.
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015)
Facts of the case
According to Oyez, “Groups of same-sex couples sued their relevant state agencies in
Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee to challenge the constitutionality of those states' bans
on same-sex marriage or refusal to recognize legal same-sex marriages that occurred in
jurisdictions that provided for such marriages. The plaintiffs in each case argued that the states'
statutes violated the Equal Protection Clause and Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment, and one group of plaintiffs also brought claims under the Civil Rights Act. In all
the cases, the trial court found in favor of the plaintiffs. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth
Circuit reversed and held that the states' bans on same-sex marriage and refusal to recognize
marriages performed in other states did not violate the couples' Fourteenth Amendment rights to
equal protection and due process” (Obergefell v. Hodges).
Legal Question
The Obergefell v. Hodges Supreme Court Case answers the following legal questions:
Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to license a marriage between two people of the
same sex? Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage between two
people of the same sex that was legally licensed and performed in another state? (Obergefell v.
Hodges).
4
Court’s Decision
In a 5-4 majority, the United States Supreme Court “held that the Due Process Clause of
the Fourteenth Amendment guarantees the right to marry as one of the fundamental liberties it
protects, and that analysis applies to same-sex couples in the same manner as it does to opposite-
sex couples” (Obergefell v. Hodges). Additionally, “Judicial precedent has held that the right to
marry is a fundamental liberty because it is inherent to the concept of individual autonomy, it
protects the most intimate association between two people, it safeguards children and families by
according to legal recognition to building a home and raising children, and it has historically
been recognized as the keystone of social order. Because there are no differences between a
same-sex union and an opposite-sex union with respect to these principles, the exclusion of
same-sex couples from the right to marry violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment” (Obergefell v. Hodges). In a Christian worldview, one would argue that a marriage
between a same-sex couple is not legitimate because it’s not what God intended. Leviticus 20:13
states, “If a man lies with a male as with a woman, both of them have committed an
abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon them” (Bible Gateway NIV,
2022).
Rationale of the dissenting opinions
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. wrote a dissent in which he argued that “while same-
sex marriage might be good and fair policy, the Constitution does not address it, and therefore it
is beyond the purview of the Court to decide whether states must recognize or license such
unions. Instead, this issue should be decided by individual state legislatures based on the will of
their electorates” (Obergefell v. Hodges). Chief Justice Roberts makes a good and fair point in
his dissent, and while his job is to interpret the Constitution to determine whether something in
5
constitutional or unconstitutional, I believe it’s unfair to leave it up to the states to decide for
themselves. Same-sex marriage should be a universal right that is accepted throughout the United
States, and people who don’t believe in it can have their opinions and disagreements, but it
should also be a universal thought to let people love who they want to love and marry who they
choose to marry.
In addition, Justice Thomas wrote a separate dissent in which he argued that “the
majority opinion stretched the doctrine of substantive due process rights found in the Fourteenth
Amendment too far and in doing so distorted the democratic process by taking power from the
legislature and putting it in the hands of the judiciary” (Obergefell v. Hodges). Justice Thomas is
a well-known conservative that is deeply rooted in the Bible, his dissent is not surprising.
Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018)
Facts of the case
According to Oyez, “In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece
Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a
cake for their wedding. Phillips declined to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding
cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. Phillips believes that decorating
cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would displease God to create
cakes for same-sex marriages” (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights
Commission). As a result, “Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado
Civil Rights Division, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado
Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA)” (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights
Commission). The assertion made by Phillips is questionable, “If baking a cake is speech, then
so is cooking food or, as in other cases that have arisen, taking pictures, or making floral
6
arrangements. Any business could refuse to serve gay weddings—or for that matter anyone—by
claiming that theJantidiscriminationJlaw constitutes impermissible compelled speech”
(Chemerinsky).
Legal question
The Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Supreme Court Case
answers the following legal question: Does the application of Colorado's public accommodations
law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious
beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First
Amendment? (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).
Court’s Decision
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court reversed “holding that the Colorado Civil Rights
Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for declining to make a
wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Exercise Clause” (Masterpiece Cakeshop,
Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission). Furthermore, “The Court explained that while gay
persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the
Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views
and can also be protected forms of expression. The Colorado law at issue in this case, which
prohibited discrimination against gay people in purchasing products and services, had to be
applied in a neutral manner with regard to religion. The majority acknowledged that from
Phillips' perspective, creating cakes was a form of artistic expression and a component of his
sincere religious beliefs” (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).
Rationale of the dissenting opinions
7
Justice Ginsburg authored a dissenting opinion, in which she was joined by Justice
Sotomayor, stating that “neither the Commission's comments regarding Phillips' religious views
nor its alleged disparate treatment of bakers objecting to making cakes with anti-gay messages
justified ruling in favor of Phillips” (Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights
Commission). In contrast, Justice Thomas “filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in
the judgment and was joined by Justice Gorsuch. Thomas argued that an order requiring Phillips
to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple would violate his First Amendment rights”
(Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission).
While I can understand the decision made by the Supreme Court, it’s nearly impossible to
wrap my head around the fact that people can be so hateful and negative towards each other
based on small things that don’t truly matter that much. It’s difficult to live in a world where so
many of my loved ones are gay and are a part of the LGBTQ community, and to see what they
have to endure every day makes me sick. Additionally, “Freedom of religion and religion has
been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether
it be the Holocaust, whether it be—I mean,Jwe—weJcan list hundreds of situations where
freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And toJmeJit is one of the most
despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to—to use their religion to hurt others”
(Chemerinsky). In my opinion, if religion, especially Christianity, makes you discriminate or
have negative thoughts towards people who aren’t heterosexual, then that’s something worth
looking introspectively on. A large part of being a Christian is about loving other human beings
with open arms and not judging them because God and Christ teach us how to execute that.
8
The United States in the 21st Century
Based on the decisions of Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and Masterpiece Cake Shop v.
Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018), the United States has a strict constructionist view of
the Constitution, and this view emanates from having a strong religious foundation. Although the
Supreme Court that made decisions on these two cases is not the same Supreme Court today, in
2022, I can infer that they would have made similar decisions. Since our Supreme Court today
being majority conservative, I would say the only exception to my previous statement would be
the Obergefell v. Hodges case. I believe that the Supreme Court today would rule that case as
“the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment does not guarantee the right to marry as
one of the fundamental liberties it protects, and that analysis does not apply to same-sex couples
in the same manner as it does to opposite-sex couples. I believe this to be true because of both
America’s constitutional history and the Christian foundation that exists in America today.
Conservatives who have strong Christian religious beliefs tend to have a strict constructionist
view of the Constitution, and they also tend to believe that the Constitution shouldn’t be
amended to incorporate modern ideals such as, same-sex marriage, women’s rights, etc. They
take what the Founding Fathers created and live strictly by it, just like they do the Bible.
Comparatively, liberals tend to not have such a strong sense of Christian religious belief
as a conservative, and they tend to have a loose constructionist view of the constitution. This
means that since liberals tend to not strictly follow the Bible, they are more open to accepting
modern societal changes such as, same-sex marriage, abortion, contraceptives, etc. Therefore,
liberals are not being opposed to amending a constitution that is two-hundred and thirty-five
years old. An interesting point made my McClellan is that “Many of the Framers of the
American Constitution were of the opinion that constitutional government requires, above all, a
9
“virtuous” citizenry if it is to endure. Certainly, a constitution cannot last if it is willfully
ignored, or if there is no common understanding among the citizens and their elected leaders as
to what the achievement of liberty, order, and justice requires” (McClellan, 1989). But what if
America’s citizenry is no longer virtuous? What if Americans no longer have a common
understanding of what the achievement of liberty, order, and justice is and requires?
The United States is so extremely divided in what leads back to our fundamental roots,
that now we have completely opposite ideals, morals, beliefs, etc., so how can anything get done
in our government if there can’t be any compromise? The future of the U.S. government has to
be bright, otherwise I may lose all hope and faith. I’ve seen how greedy, corrupt, unfair, and
ruthless our government can be. For a country that claims to be built on Christian values, there
seems to be a lot of sinning occurring within the government. Romans 13:7 states, “Pay to all
what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect
to whom respect is owed, honor to whom honor is owed” (Bible Gateway NIV, 2022). As an up-
and-coming adult in society, I don’t want my children to live in a country where they can’t safely
get an education, or where my daughter doesn’t have bodily autonomy and be constantly fearful
of being raped by a man and being forced to birth that fetus. I also don’t want them to live in a
country where if they are gay, they’ll be discriminated and hated. As previously stated, the next
generation is coming of age to be elected to government, and we will remember all the instances
the older generation made monumental mistakes, especially minorities, women, and the LGBTQ
community.
10
Bibliography
BeMiller, H. (2022, June 24). JimObergefell says Supreme Court abortion ruling puts target on
privacy, Gay Marriage. The Enquirer. Retrieved November 25, 2022, from
https://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2022/06/24/ohio-gay-marriage-scotus-dobbs-v-
jackson-affect-obergefell/7722723001/
Chemerinsky, E. (n.d.). Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece
Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. American Bar Association. Retrieved
November 25, 2022, from
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-
ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Oyez. (n.d.). Retrieved
November 25, 2022, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
McClellan, J. (1989). Liberty, Order, and Justice. Online library of Liberty. Retrieved November
20, 2022, from https://oll.libertyfund.org/title/mcclellan-liberty-order-and-
justice#lf0088_label_089
New International Version (NIV). Bible Gateway. (n.d.). Retrieved November 28, 2022, from
https://www.biblegateway.com/versions/New-International-Version-NIV-Bible/
Obergefell v. Hodges. Oyez. (n.d.). Retrieved November 25, 2022, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/2014/14-556
