Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
| Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||
| Negotiated December 5, 2017 |
||||
| Decided June 4th, 2018 |
||||
|
||||
| facts | ||||
| Certiorari to clarify the question of whether a pastry chef in the US state of Colorado can be legally obliged to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding celebration , although the pastry chef refuses to do so on the basis of his religious beliefs. | ||||
| decision | ||||
| . | ||||
| occupation | ||||
|
||||
| Positions | ||||
|
||||
| Applied Law | ||||
| 1. Amendment to the United States Constitution |
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is the Supreme Court of the United States negotiated case on the question whether a pastry with regard to the first Amendment to the Constitution of the United States enshrined freedom of religion making a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding party can refuse for religious reasons. The oral hearing took place on December 5, 2017.
background
In July 2012, the same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins ordered at the pastry Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado a wedding cake for their planned same-sex wedding. Jack C. Phillips, the owner of the pastry shop, declined on the grounds that he could not deliver a cake for same-sex wedding celebrations due to religious convictions.
Craig and Mullins then reprimanded the owner's behavior with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is also illegal for private companies in the state of Colorado. After further attempts to reach an amicable settlement failed, they sued Phillips in court. The first two instances ruled in favor of the plaintiffs. However, Phillips appealed to the US Supreme Court. This adopted the decision on June 26, 2017 for the final decision.
Hearing
At the oral hearing negotiated on December 5, 2017, the confectioner's attorney stated that the wedding cakes he had handcrafted based on specific customer requests should not be viewed as mere food, but as works of art . This is a type of personal language protected by Amendment 1 to the United States Constitution. Your client's refusal to sell a wedding cake is not based on the client's wish to discriminate against same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation. Rather, Phillips is ready to sell all the goods already in the display of his shop for a same-sex wedding. With the production of a customer-specific cake especially for a same-sex wedding, however, he participates in such an event himself, which is forbidden to him due to his religious convictions.
In return, the representative of the Civil Law Commission and judges, who are considered liberal, pointed out that wedding cakes may no longer be available for same-sex couples in sparsely populated, rural areas with high proportions of religious-conservative populations. In addition, it was unclear which providers, like the applicant, could claim a right to refuse to service a same-sex wedding for customer-specific goods and services, as no clear lines could be drawn in this regard. If a broad fundamental judgment were made in favor of the applicant, a hairdresser or make-up artist could also refuse to cooperate. A graphic designer might refuse to make invitation cards for same-sex couples and a catering company might refuse to cater to a same-sex wedding party.
On the latter argument as was amicus curiae invited counsel for the Trump-government Noel Francisco to remember that a broad approach landmark ruling could mean against the applicant that a black sculptor was forced to make a sculpture for Ku Klux Klan to produce.
decision
On June 4, 2018, a decision was made in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop with a voting ratio of 7: 2. The Supreme Court argued that the Civil Law Commission violated the confectioner's freedom of religion as guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the United States Constitution .
Web links
Individual evidence
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States : Docket No. 16-111: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al. , accessed December 5, 2017.
- ^ [1] Press release from the New York Times dated June 4, 2018
- ^ [2] Announcement by CNBC from June 4, 2018