Discrimination hampers the growth of a society as well as the country. Considering the negative impacts of discrimination in the society, the governments in most of the countries have introduced specific laws against any kind of discrimination. This essay will focus on the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was lodged to the court because of the discrimination made by Masterpiece Cake Shop between homosexual people and heterosexual people. The details of the case and the final decision provided by the Supreme Court will be discussed in detail in the essay.
In the particular case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the basic argument of Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd was that the owner of the company could not make any cake for the marriage of a gay couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins because of his religious belief. On the other hand, the basic argument of Colorado Civil Rights Commission was that the act or decision of the shop owner was against the anti-discrimination law in Colorado (McIntosh, 2018). Though at that time that is in 2012 same-sex marriage was not allowed in the society of Colorado on legal grounds, based on the rules under the anti-discrimination act the commission lodged the case to the court. According to the commission, refusing to bake cake for a gay couple the owner influenced discrimination against gay and lesbians (McIntosh, 2018).
In this case, the Supreme Court at first mentioned that the cake shop owner refused to bake the cake for the gay couple because of his religious belief and as per the legal system in Colorado it is not appropriate to charge against a person because of his or her religious belief. Justice Anthony Kennedy mentioned that in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the commission ignored the religious neutrality. Justice Anthony Kennedy also mentioned that though exercising discrimination while serving public is not allowed, if the situation involves religious belief no charge should be lodged against the any person (McIntosh, 2018).
At that time, though majority of judges supported the above stated decision, there were some judges who were not agreed with the judgement. However, after a long period of 6 years the Supreme Court provided the final decision in favour of Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In that decision, court mentioned that considering both anti-discrimination law and the law for religious neutrality, it has been understood that based on the religious belief a person especially an organization cannot practice any kind of discrimination. The court supported the view that if the practice done by the cake shop owner is allowed that will influence discrimination in the society to the greater extent (McIntosh, 2018). Considering this fact the Supreme Court finally declared the cake shop owner guilt for the discrimination that he had made in 2012 to Charlie Craig and David Mullins.
In this context it is important to be mentioned that in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission justice Ginsburg provided or wrote the dissenting opinion. Dissenting opinion can be explained as the opinion provided to a legal case if one or more judges of the case are disagreed with a particular decision regarding the case. In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, justice Ginsburg mentioned that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted in a fair manner in that particular case because the act of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was right as per the customer’s statutory protected trait (McIntosh, 2018).
Keeping the decision of the Supreme Court aside, if I evaluate the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission justice, I must state that based on personal religious belief nobody can hurt the other people. In this world, each person has their own right to make their decision without hampering the interests of the other people. In this particular case, the cake shop owner had no right to refuse the order of the gay couple because they were equal to the other customers. The cake shop owner should have treated Charlie Craig and David Mullins as normal customer. Hence, I must state that I am completely agreed with the final decision made by the Supreme Court in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Considering the findings in the essay it has been understood that the practice of masterpiece cake shop owner was against the anti-discrimination act in Colorado. In the case, the Supreme Court finally made the decision in favour of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The court made it clear that based on personal religious belief a person cannot make ay discrimination when he or she is providing public services.
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: 4 June 2018. Oxford Journal of Law and Religion, 7(3), pp.574-575.
Urgenthomework helped me with finance homework problems and taught math portion of my course as well. Initially, I used a tutor that taught me math course I felt that as if I was not getting the help I needed. With the help of Urgenthomework, I got precisely where I was weak: Sheryl. Read More