Case Between Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Name:
Course Code:
Date:
Case Between Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. V. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd filed a case in SCOTUS against Colorado Civil Rights Commission seeking a review on an earlier ruling made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in the case Craig vs Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. The court was to rule on whether Colorado Civil Rights Commission of Colorado could force Jack Philips to violate his beliefs which are protected by the constitution under the First Amendment. Many people assumed that the case was about LGBTQ rights and owners of private businesses, but the case had now become an issue of a company (Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd) defending its employees (Philip) from unfair ruling by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
Some people like CITATION Law17 \l 1033 (Glickman, 2017) questioned the reasons behind the ruling claiming that the corporate and business world have put their interests in front of their customers and have started treating clients as pests. He points out the near unanimous ruling by the supreme court authored by Justice Kennedy was inaccurate and selective in relating facts to the underpinning issues of the case. He also pointed out the technicalities which show the shallow approach of the case highlighting how the court referenced the parties in the case at times referring Masterpiece Cakeshop ltd and Philip as the same thing. CITATION Joh182 \l 1033 (Gehring, 2018) on the other hand, puts in context the case in the larger context of what the case meant to the LGBTQ community in a country which is increasingly becoming conservative. He tries to show why the case ought to have been ruled in favor of the LGBTQ community and therefore become a landmark reference for a more equal and non-discriminative community. As a progressive catholic himself, he tries to show that the supreme court should have ruled in favor of the LGBTQ community to abridge religious freedom and dignify the LGBTQ community. CITATION And18 \l 1033 (Strong, 2018) describes what the case means to the food industry and other business and social groupings. He argues that the implied ruling on the case has ripple effect on the hospitality industry and the court must be careful to ensure it champions public accommodation for all. Since at the time of the publication of his article, he tries to predict the possible rulings that can be handed over and their impact on the food industry and other services-centered businesses.
However, in my opinion, the supreme court ruled fairly considering the core question under review. The question before the supreme court was ‘Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Philips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.’ Thus, it is important to notice that the case involved Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd, a private limited company, and Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The complainant sought the interpretation of the law on whether Colorado’s public accommodations law can be used to compel an individual, like Philip to create an expression that violated his beliefs. In my opinion, the public accommodations law should not in the interest of the public be used to compel individuals to express themselves in a way that violates their beliefs because it their right protected by the First Amendment.
The ruling of the case was not about discrimination of the LGBT community but to determine to which extent could the government impose its will on the people. Secondly, it was to rule whether the due course of justice was followed in issuing the ruling in the earlier case between Philip and the complainants and whether Philip’s rights under the First Amendment were considered in the case. Philip felt that the order by the David Mullins and Charlie Craig was to make him do something he did not want though it was part of his job. The supreme court was therefore protecting the rights of Philip which were under attack by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The ruling by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ‘did not afford Philips a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims for religious exemption.’ The Civil Rights Commission had some level of inconsistency in its ruling on similar cases. The interpretation of the law should be impartial to everyone. The law is superior and cannot be applied selectively to circulate a certain ideas. The supreme court understood that its verdict on the case would be referenced in future cases and therefore it had to account for fut...