“Where’s the Cake?”
In June 2018, in a 7–2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. This decision represents a shield for individuals whose religious freedom has been under constant attack over the past years. The Court made the correct decision in giving the owner the ability to pursue his job in a way that conforms with his religious identity.
David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited the Masterpiece Cakeshop, located in Lakewood, Colorado, in 2012 to ask the owner, Jack Phillips, if he could make them a cake for their wedding. At the time, same-sex marriage was not legal in Colorado, so the couple decided they were going to get married in Massachusetts. The baker turned them down, arguing, “I’m being forced to use my creativity, my talents and my art for an event — a significant religious event — that violates my religious faith.” The couple filed a claim against Mr. Phillips on the basis that he had violated Colorado state law. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) prohibits public businesses from refusing service to individuals based on characteristics such as sexual orientation. In response, Mr. Phillips raised First Amendment claims, arguing that his religious expression was protected under the Constitution. The Court ruled that the baker had the freedom to exercise his right to religious expression, and that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which represented the couple, had shown anti-religious bias.
The owner of the cake shop was not completely shutting off the gay couple. Mr. Phillips once said, “Everybody that comes in my door is welcome here, and any of the products I normally sell I’m glad to sell to anybody. But a custom-made wedding cake is another matter.” Mr. Phillips offered to sell the couple other products such as cookies, brownies, and pre-made cakes, but they refused to accept the offer. The couple could have easily gone to another bakery that would serve them, but instead they continued disrupting Mr. Phillips’s business, attempting to force him to serve them.
In another case that tested the collision of religious expression and creative expression through baking, a man named William Jack, in March 2014, asked for custom-made cakes from another Colorado bakery. He wanted two Bible-shaped cakes, each with a Bible verse on it. The verses were “God hates sin. Psalm 45:7” and “Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.” The bakery refused to serve the man, and although he filed a complaint against the bakery owner, the Colorado Civil Rights Commissions ruled that Mr. Jack had not been treated unfairly.
It is unjust to force bakers to make cakes that convey messages and ideologies that do not represent how they think. Cake makers are able to express their identities through their work, and although members of the LGBTQ community should have access to fundamental civil rights, they are in no position to force religiously-focused individuals to agree with them. If either Mr. Phillips or the other Colorado baker had agreed to make the cakes, they would be demonstrating their support for something they fundamentally disagreed with: gay marriage, in the case of Mr. Phillips, and anti-gay speech in the case of the other baker. At the end of the day, it was just a cake that these customers were being denied. As writer David Brooks describes it, “It’s not like they were being denied a home or a job, or a wedding. A cake looks good in magazines, but it’s not an important thing.” It takes bakers time, energy, and dedication to make cakes, which is why it is important that every cake they make is an accurate representation of their ideologies, their personalities, and what they stand for.
For many individuals, this decision not only represents a loss for members of the LGBTQ community, but it also grants people the ability to use religion as a form of discrimination. In 28 states, LGBTQ people can still be legally denied housing or fired. In Oklahoma, for example, gay and lesbian couples can be denied the ability to adopt children. “Masterpiece is a defeat,” wrote Jennifer Finney Boylan, adding that “a bigger defeat is having to have one’s rights as a citizen challenged, discussed and put forth for debate in the first place.”
While it might seem that the Court is in favor of allowing discrimination against LGBTQ members, in retrospect, America is moving towards a more inclusive environment that encourages intellectual discourse. These cases teach us to be respectful toward people who have opposite views and helps us understand that religion and advocacy for LGBTQ rights can, and should, co-exist together. Over the past three years, more than 300 bills have been passed across states to provide the LGBTQ community with more rights, including the 2015 same-sex marriage law. A recent study from the organization Gallup found that 67 percent of Americans express acceptance towards same-sex marriages, the highest in the survey’s history. In 2016, 63 percent of Americans said homosexuality should be accepted by society, with 92 percent of LGBTQ-identifying adults saying society had become more accepting of them.
As an openly gay man myself, I want our country to stop discriminating against members of my community. But I do not find it fair that we judge other individuals for simply living their lives according to their religion. At the end of the day, we should learn to appreciate our unique perspectives because without conflicting views, there is no space to move forward. People will never stop being religious. LGBTQ people will never stop fighting for their rights. So, instead of judging and attacking religion, why not just respect those who follow it so that we can all live in harmony?
