Running head: THE SUPREME COURT – FINAL INSTALLMENT 1

The Supreme Court

Final Installment

DeVry University 

QUESTION ONE

As discussed throughout a series of different cases involving the importance of the row and our US constitution. As stated previously, we take many rights for granted and the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is what I will be breaking down in order to complete this final installment. When presented with the task of explaining the process in which the case wound its way from the civil rights Commission, to the Colorado Court of Appeals and finally to the United States Supreme Court it is important to bring forth the proper information in which makes this explanation very transparent. It is also equally important to note that the case’s process in which it went from Civil Rights Commission to the Colorado Court of appeals was due to the Administrative Law Judge issuing a written order finding in favor of Craig and Mullins, which was affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the Commission’s ruling. Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014. After the Division issued a notice of determination finding probable cause, Craig and Mullins filed a formal complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in violation of CADA.

QUESTION TWO

Two fundamental constitutional rights found in the Bill of Rights in which form the basis of the arguments made by Masterpiece Cakeshop. Masterpiece Cakeshop, is a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, a suburb of Denver. The shop offers a variety of baked goods, ranging from everyday cookies and brownies to elaborate custom-designed cakes for birthday parties, weddings, and other events. One of the first constitutional rights in which form the basis of the arguments made by the cake shop was that Phillips contended that requiring him to create cakes for same sex weddings would violate his right to the free exercise of religion.

Essentially, this would be protected by the 1st amendment in this specific case and argument. Phillips raised 2 constitutional claims before ALJ, In which his 1st claim follow by applying CADA In specific ways in which would require him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his 1st amendment right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed. it is also important to note that the ALJ also rejected the contention that preparing a wedding cake is a form of protected speech and did not agree that creating Craig Mullins’ cake Would force Phillips to adhere to an ideological point of view. I believe these claims being rejected were truly a brilliant way in which explains how Phillips attempted to utilize two fundamental constitutional rights in the Bill of Rights in order to form the basis of his arguments in which would allow him to properly defend his actions along with his decision to refuse the service of add hearing to this specific orders of Craig, specifically regarding baking the same sex marriage wedding cake.

QUESTION 3

After assessing an identifying one of the rights found in the Bill of Rights that serve as the basis for the arguments made by Masterpiece Cakeshop, there were ultimately two fundamental rights in which were being argued in this case. I believe this had much to do with how Phillips believe that him being required to create a cake for anybody who exercise gay beliefs would allegedly cause Phillips to violate his protected 1st amendment belief that creating a cake for a same-sex wedding is in violation of his 1st amendment to the free exercise of religion. The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision in full. Id., at 57a. The Commission ordered Phillips to “cease and desist from discriminating against … same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any product [they] would sell to heterosexual couples.” Ibid. It also ordered additional remedial measures, including “comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section” of CADA “and changes to any and all company policies to comply with … this Order.” Id., at 58a. The Commission additionally required Phillips to prepare “quarterly compliance reports” for a period of two years documenting “the number of patrons denied service” and why, along with “a statement describing the remedial actions taken.” Ibid.

QUESTION 4

The claims made by the plaintiffs, Charlie Craig, and David Mullins, were astounding in my opinion and they provided the arguments of this case with some much needed insight on the overall case and situation. One claim was, “Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver. To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for “our wedding.” Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned.” Another claim was, “Craig and Mullins filed a discrimination complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop and Phillips in September 2012, shortly after the couple’s visit to the shop. App. 31. The complaint alleged that Craig and Mullins had been denied “full and equal service” at the bakery because of their sexual orientation, id., at 35, 48, and that it was Phillips' “standard business practice” not to provide cakes for same-sex weddings, id., at 43.”

QUESTION 5

We are now faced with what was the basis for the decision by the US Supreme Court and how it addressed the main issues of the case or in better words did it address the main issues of the case? Well to briefly overstate the basis of the claims were surrounded by In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a cake for their wedding. Phillips declined to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would displease God to create cakes for same-sex marriages.

Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights

Division, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado AntiDiscrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014. After the Division issued a notice of determination finding probable cause, Craig and Mullins filed a formal complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in violation of CADA.

The Administrative Law Judge issued a written order finding in favor of Craig and Mullins, which was affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On appeal, the Colorado

Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the Commission’s ruling.

References

https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111 

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org )