4: If the Supreme Court had ruled on the substantive question of freedom of speech, which side do you think would have won and why? Reference Case Snyder v. Phelps (see attached text book pages 225-230)
In think if the Supreme Court (SC) based its ruling freedom Colorado Civil Rights Commission (CCRC) would have won the case. In particular, same-sex marriage is a public issue that attracts special protection from the First Amendment. In its attempt to implement the First Amendment, Colorado state law and associated provisions prohibit any given public accommodations, such as businesses from discriminating against an individual for publicly expressing their sexual orientation. In ruling for CCRC, the SC would seek to establish whether the defendant, Masterpiece Cakeshop either recklessly engaged in outrageous conduct, which includes failing to serve Charlie Craig and David Mullins only because of their sexual orientation.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
In addition to ascertaining the outrageous nature of Phillip’s conduct, the SC would further put emphasis on ascertaining whether the incident occurred in public or private place. In this case, Mullins and Craig visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a for-profit firm located in public land, with good intention of promoting the business by buying a wedding reception cake ( Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018). The to-be couple enjoys freedom of expression, which allows Mullins and Craig to not hide their sexual orientation. In Snyder v. Phelps (2011), the SC ruled in favor of Westboro Baptist Church after establishing that the Phelps, as well as his followers did not violate the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause. The court argued that the speech by the church in question was of public concern, as they protested issues of legitimate social, political, as well as news interest.
Although Phillip expressed his displeasure with a matter of public concern, same-sex marriage, he failed to consider any social or emotional damage caused by his action. In essence, failure to rule in favor of CCRC in this context would mean that the SC is setting a bad precedent in sexual orientation cases. In other words, it would have far-reaching negative implications on the LGBT community, with business owners or straight residents in public settings or places using the court’s ruling on freedom of speech to stereotype their lesbian and gay counterparts.
Question 5: if the Supreme Court had ruled on the substantive question of religion, which side do you think would have won and why? Reference Case Wallace v. Jaffree (attached)
I firmly believe that Masterpiece Cakeshop would win the case if the SC based its decision on religion as the guiding or substantive question. In its ruling, the court would seek to ascertain that CCRC failed to consider Phillip’s deep, as well as sincere religious beliefs. Moreover, the court would strive to establish whether Phillip acted outrageously. In essence, the court would determine whether Phillip provided a convincing reason for his actions, which aligns perfectly well with the provisions of the First Amendment on freedom of religion. In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the SC proceeded to uphold the ruling by the appellate court, arguing that the state of Maryland violated the First Amendment’s principle of government neutrality when it comes to religion. Likewise, CCRC lacks the much-much needed mandate to compel Phillip to go against his religious beliefs, as a way of respecting Mullins and Craig’s freedom of speech.
Apart from Phillips right to express his staunch religious convictions, it remains clear from the evident presented in court that he did not, in any way, acted recklessly. In particular, he explained to Mullins and Craig that his religious beliefs do not allow him to support nor identify with same-sex marriage. Additionally, he offered to sell them other baked items, but not marriage reception cake since this would mean he has endorsed the act. At the same time, Phillip told Mullins and Craig that he has served other baked goods to lesbians and gays before, but not for marriage purposes. In Wallace v. Jaffree (1985), the SC ruled that it is unconstitutional to force one’s religious beliefs and associated practices on another person. The same criterion applies to Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) because CCRC’s ruling fostered the association’s entanglement with religion. Most importantly, the SC final decision would favor Masterpiece Cakeshop because his artistic skills in making cakes comprise the business’ expressive statement, which remain protected by the First Amendment.
References
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission , 584 U.S. (2018).
Snyder v. Phelps , 562 U.S. 443 (2011).
Wallace v. Jaffree , 472 U.S. 38 (1985).
