The supreme court came out with the decision on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The justices ruled 7-2 in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop. The case originated in Colorado in 2012 when the owner of the cake shop refused to make a cake for a gay couples wedding reception. The owner, Mr. Phillips, cited his Christian faith as his reason for refusing. The two laws that were pitted against each other are Phillips right to artistic freedom under the First Amendment and the anti-discrimination argument of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on behalf of the two men Phillips turned away. Because the ruling was in favor of the cake shop, many LGBTQ+ activists have spoken out against this ruling. Rachel B. Tiven, CEO of Lambda Legal, said on the ruling, “The Court today has offered dangerous encouragement to those who would deny civil rights to LGBT people and people living with HIV. (…) We will continue to fight in every arena and in every court until LGBT people and people living with HIV have full equality under the law in every aspect of our lives. We deserve no less.” (Source: CBS News) Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote in her dissent, “When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding ― not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings ― and that is the service [the couple] were denied.” (Source: Huffington Post) However, Justice Kennedy wrote that “this sentiment is inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.” His reasoning stems from the fact that Justice Kennedy believes, due to comments made by those on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, that Mr. Phillips was not given a fair trial, and based his ruling solely on that fact. Despite the fact this case ruled against the two men the decision handed down by the Justices does not specifically state that Mr. Phillips was within his rights to refuse the couple for their sexuality, rather simply that his rights as a Chrisitian were not respected. The case of Arlene’s Flowers, Inc. v. Washington, however, specifically deals with the issue of, “Whether the creation and sale of floral arrangements for weddings is artistic expression, and if so, whether compelling that creation violates the Free Speech Clause” and “Whether the compelled creation and sale of floral arrangements for weddings and attendance of that wedding against one’s religious beliefs violates the Free Exercise Clause.” (Source: Advocate) Later this month the Supreme Court will decide whether it will hear this case or not, and if does decide to do so this is the case to pay attention to because if the Justices rule in her favor it could very well set a legal precedent that allows business to cite religious beliefs as a way to legally discriminate against LGBT people, which would have widespread consequences. It should be noted that Arlene Flowers Inc. is being represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an anti-LGBT group, which also defended Mr. Phillip's business, Masterpiece Cakeshop. Common Ground Exec would like to voice our support for the LGBTQ+ persons in both of the cases mentioned. We are strong advocates for equal rights and hope for the best in all upcoming cases.
