Hello, we are Sean, Erin, Nibrar, Katherine, Owen, and William. To analyze our case, Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, we interviewed five people to gain public and student perspectives on the case, with the main points focusing on if the situation was discrimination, or if the owner was correct to react the way he did. The event which later led to a court case occurred in July of 2012 when David and Charlie went to Masterpiece to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The couple would be celebrating a marriage in Colorado with close friends and family after their wedding in Boston.
The owner of Masterpiece, Jack Phillips, informed the couple politely in the 30 second conversation (3)that due to his religious beliefs, the store’s policy was to deny service to customers who wished to order baked goods to celebrate a same-sex couple’s wedding (1). Since it was against his beliefs to create a cake for the couple, Phillips suggested that he would like to make them another item and then sell it to them, which would not go against the store’s policy (3) or his religion. Philips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art. He also believes that through his ability to create cakes, he is honoring God with his artistic talents, and that creating cakes for same-sex marriages or receptions would make God angry(1).
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) went on to state “Colorado State law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on factors such as race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation” (1). Mullins and Craig filed complaints to the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD). CCRD ruled that Phillips was in the wrong for illegally discriminating against Mullins and Craig by refusing his service to a same-sex couple, which was later appealed by Masterpiece. According to the ACLU article that is cited below, the court also ordered Masterpiece Cakeshop to change its company policy. Masterpiece was mandated to provide “comprehensive staff training” regarding public accommodations and discrimination. (1)
In the same article, Masterpiece also had to provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding what changes were made to move the company into compliance and record whether it has turned away any prospective customers. After a victory for Mullins and Craig in the Colorado Court of Appeals on August 13, 2015, Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed the Colorado Supreme Court ruling but were declined for a re-hearing. (1) Masterpiece Cakeshop then asked the Supreme Court of the United States to hear the case. On June 26, 2017, the Supreme Court announced it would review the case’s decision from the Colorado Court of Appeals.
In the Court of Appeals document, Masterpiece argued that Colorado’s enforcement of its law unconstitutionally discriminates between viewpoints on same-sex marriage. The document from the court also stated that the Free Speech Clause entitles individuals to communicate or to refrain from sending messages concerning same-sex marriage with which they disagree—but in Colorado, as in many states with similar laws, those free-speech rights are selectively enforced. From the court of appeals document, Colorado acknowledge that its law exempts work containing “specific designs or messages that are offensive” to the producer (2). A student we interviewed stated, “companies should have the freedom to run their business how they please as long as it does not hurt or threaten anyone.”
The court of appeals document also states that due to the exception listed in the prior paragraph, Colorado allows bakers to refuse orders that come from customers who ask them to create cakes opposing same-sex marriage. With that said, Colorado prohibits bakers from refusing orders from customers who ask them to create cakes supporting same-sex marriage, even though creating the cake would violate their core religious beliefs. Colorado’s position can only be that opposing same-sex marriage is offensive, while supporting same-sex marriage is not offensive (2). This case is still being looked into, as no official ruling has been released by any authorities, as of the time that this blog is written cite.
After a long process of analyzing the case and processing it, we came up with a number of questions to present to Iowa State University students and peers. One question we asked was, “do you think it is right for the cake shop owner to refuse the couple service based on the customers sexual orientation? State whether you think yes or no and explain your answer”. When asked if it was alright for the cake shop owner to refuse service, one student replied: “yes, because the owner is passionate about what his doing as a career”. On the flipside of the previous statement, some of the Iowa State students whom were interviewed leaned in favor of Charlie Craig and David Mullins. One interviewee stated, “ultimately, choosing not to serve the men would be…plain discrimination cite.” The same interviewee disagreed strongly with the statement, “individuals have the right to deny their artwork to those whose practices violate their religious beliefs.” is there any more information that can be elaborated on why the interviewee felt that way?
Although whether this constitutes as discrimination is the question before the court; precedent seems to favor the side of the plaintiffs cite (how do you know that?). Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States (1964) presented a similar fact pattern and landmark ruling (Rotunda). In this case, the motel argued it was against the owner’s religious beliefs to open rooms to traveling African Americans. This case ultimately upheld the Civil Rights Act of 1964 making discrimination within public accommodations unconstitutional based on the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution how does this ruling tie into the cakeshop case- elaborate/ explain.
Masterpiece Cakeshop would be considered a public accommodation under the Civil Rights Act, therefore making the fact patterns almost synonymous. Insert Civil Rights Act information- CRA covers discrimination against race, color, religion, sex, national origin, not same –sex? Although the defendant asserts a Free Speech claim instead of a Commerce Clause claim, the ruling in Katzenbach v. McClung (1964) decided the Supreme Court was not required to determine a business’s close and substantial relationship to interstate commerce in order to deem it in violation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Ultimately, the fact Masterpiece cake shop meets the qualification to be a public accommodation, the free speech argument will not be strong enough to overturn the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Clarify this- CRA of 1964 does not cover discrimination against sexual preference.
These two cases ultimately provide legal support to defend the moral reasoning of the plaintiffs and liberal Iowa State students. For those whose moral foundations lead them to conclude in favor of the gay couple, arguing the cakes shop’s public accommodation element may be enough to win the case and eliminate any free speech argument on behalf of the defendant. What about those who were on the other end of the spectrum? We need to state their beliefs and reasonings as well. Remember, we aren’t taking a side, we’re just analyzing and presenting the information that we found.