(Before)

1st Amendment
Freedom Of Religion

(Chained hands holding religious symbols)

The United States Government cannot restrict someone's ability

to practice a religion
 Article

As the Supreme Court wrestled with a clash between religious freedom and LGBT rights on
Tuesday, all eyes were on Justice Anthony Kennedy, who might have to reconcile two strands of
his jurisprudence.

The case concerns a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake to celebrate a same-sex
couple's marriage because ​he believes that God designed marriage to be between a man and a
woman.

Lawyers for Jack Phillips relied on two parts of the First Amendment -- free exercise and
free speech -- to make his case, and at times Kennedy seemed torn during the lively and
sometimes rapid-fire arguments.

As a lawyer for Phillips made his free speech argument on behalf of the baker's "artistic
expression," Justice Elena Kagan and other liberals pounced, ​asking where they were supposed
to draw a coherent line designating which business owners could qualify for an exemption from
anti-discrimination laws. A jeweler? A makeup artist? A hairstylists

Kennedy worried about the dignity of same sex couples. He wondered if Phillips
prevailed "could the baker put a sign in his window, we do not bake cakes for gay weddings?"
The 81-year-old justice expressed concern about an "affront to the gay community."

But when the subject turned to free exercise of religion, Kennedy was infuriated by a part
of the record where one of the commissioners on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who
ruled against Phillips, noted that ​using freedom of religion to justify discrimination is a
"despicable piece of rhetoric."

Kennedy wondered if that showed a "hostility to religion."

Kennedy later seemed to side with Phillips when he told a lawyer for the commission:
"Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It
seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr.
Phillips' religious beliefs."

More than two years ago, Kennedy penned the Supreme Court's opinion clearing the way
for same sex marriage. LGBT rights advocates often point to his soaring language about equal
protection. But they acknowledge this case also taps into a different side of his jurisprudence: an
expansive view of the free speech rights.

They fear that if the Supreme Court ultimately sides with Phillips, it will diminish its
landmark ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges. Both sides agree that a ruling in favor of Phillips would
also open the door to claims from others who engage in professional services -- florists, for
example -- that their religious liberty exempts them from public accommodation laws applicable
to other businesses.

It was back in 1993 that Phillips opened the bakery, knowing at the outset that there
would be certain cakes he would decline to make in order to abide by his religious beliefs. ​"I
didn't want to use my artistic talents to create something that went against my Christian faith,"
he said in an interview, noting that he has also declined to make cakes to celebrate Halloween.

Flash forward to 2012, when same sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, but two
men walked into the bakery.

"The conversation was fairly short," Philips remembered. "I went over and greeted them.
We sat down at the desk where I had my wedding books open."

The men told Phillips they wanted a cake to celebrate their planned wedding, which
would be performed in another state. Phillips said he knew right away that he couldn't create the
product they were looking for without violating his faith.

"​The Bible says, 'In the beginning there was male and female,'" Phillips said. He offered
to make any other baked goods for the men.

"At which point they both stormed out and left," he said.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which
ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law. Phillips took his case to the
Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that requiring him to provide a wedding cake for the
couple violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion.
The court held that the state anti-discrimination law was neutral and generally applicable
and did not compel Phillips' Masterpiece Cakeshop to "support or endorse any particular
religious view." It simply prohibited Phillips from discriminating against potential
customers on account of their sexual orientation.

Phillips then took his case to the Supreme Court and the justices agreed to take it up
after mulling it for several weeks.

In court papers, Kristen K. Waggoner, a lawyer from the conservative Alliance Defending
Freedom who is representing Phillips, argued that the First Amendment guarantees him the
right to decline to make wedding cakes that celebrate marriages that are in conflict with his
religious beliefs. She said that Phillips is protected by two parts of the First Amendment: its
protections of religious exercise and free speech. While she argued that the free exercise clause
forbids the commission from targeting Phillips "and like-minded believers for punishment," she
reserved the bulk of her brief for the free speech clause, perhaps targeting Kennedy, who has at
times shown an expansive view of free speech.

Waggoner argued that a person viewing one of Phillips' custom wedding cakes -- his
"artistic expression" -- would "understand that it celebrates and expresses support for the
couple's marriage." ​She said the Supreme Court's compelled speech doctrine "forbids the
commission from demanding that artists design custom expression that conveys ideas they
deem objectionable."
 In the interview, Phillips said, "​I feel I'm being compelled to create artwork for an event
-- an inherently religious event -- that goes against my faith, and I'm being compelled to do so
under penalty of jail time and fines."

Not surprisingly, the same sex couple, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, see the case
through an entirely different lens: discrimination.

"​This case is about more than us, and it's not about cakes," Mullins said in an interview.
"It's about the right of gay people to receive equal service."

"This isn't about artistic expression," said Craig. "I don't feel like we asked for a piece of
art, or for him to make a statement, we simply asked him for a cake, and he denied that to us
simply because of who we are."

The couple is being represented in court by the American Civil Liberties Union.

"​In essence, the bakery seeks a constitutional right to hang a sign in its shop window
proclaiming, 'Wedding Cakes for Heterosexuals Only,'"​ the ACLU's David D. Cole wrote in court
briefs.

Cole said that whether a cake is an artistic expression is not at issue. "​The question,
rather, is whether the Constitution grants businesses open to the public the right to violate laws
against discrimination in the commercial marketplace if the business happens to sell an artistic
product." The answer, Cole contends, is "no.

Twenty other states and the District of Columbia likewise expressly prohibit places of
public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the
National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Trump administration sides with Phillips in the case, arguing that it falls "within the
small set of applications of content-neutral laws that merit heightened scrutiny" from the courts.
"A custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and
artistic than utilitarian," Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. "​Accordingly, the government
may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An
artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced
to write."

But the government lawyers did draw a line when it comes to race, arguing that laws
targeting race-based discrimination may survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny in part
because racial bias "is a familiar and recurring evil that poses unique historical, constitutional
and institutional concerns."
Paraphrase of Ariane de Vogue’s “Supreme Court hears
same-sex marriage cake case”

In Lakewood, Colorado, in the year of 2012 a gay couple, by

the names of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, was refused a cake
for their wedding by Jack Phillips, the baker, and owner of
Masterpiece Cakeshop, He told them that he would sell them
other cakes, but he couldn’t sell them a cake in good conscience.
He said that by selling them one it infringed upon his religious
beliefs that God made marriage to be between a male and female.
The couple gave a complaint to Colorado Civil Rights
Commission. The commission discovered that by refusing, the
cake shop had disregarded Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws.
The Commision agreed with the gay couple and Jack Phillips
appealed to the Court of Appeals. Then later went to the
Supreme Court
When Phillips appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals
after the Commision gave the ruling he argued that by making
him make a cake it violated his 1st amendment rights. The court
ruled that the law is unbiased and that he doesn’t need to favor
religious views just that he can’t discriminate against customers
based on their preferences. Phillips argued that he believes that
god made marriage to be between a male and female. He argued
that he did not want to go against his faith by using his talents to
make this cake In the Supreme Court Phillips’ lawyer argued that
by refusing to make the cake John is using his Freedom of
Religion and Speech. When the lawyer made her argument on
freedom of speech she said that Phillips was expressing art. The
Civil rights Commision argued that using the freedom of speech
provision to make discrimination ok is wrong. The liberal judges
fired back asking where they are supposed to draw the line to
which business owners can qualify for an exception to the
anti-discrimination laws. Kennedy, an 81-year-old justice,
wondered if Phillips won could he put up a sign saying no cakes
for gay weddings and that the state has not been tolerant or
respect full of Phillips’ beliefs. The couple argued that they
weren’t looking for art or a statement just a cake. Phillips said
that he would make any other baked goods though. Phillips’
lawyers argued about freedom of religion they argued that the 1st
amendment allows him to decline people based on his religion.
His lawyer also argued that the provision protected Phillips from
any type of punishment.
The article is a reflection of 1st Amendment because Phillips
refused to sell a gay couple a wedding cake because of his
religion and because he has the right to say what he wants. The
article discussed a dispute between John Phillips and Charlie
Craig and David Mullins and the state law treating this as
discrimination and the main question is if Phillips is allowed to
refuse them based on their relationship status.