The United States Supreme Court has given right to a Colorado pastry chef who in 2012 refused to make a wedding cake for a homosexual couple on religious grounds. In a decision of a seven-to-two majority, country's highest court ruled that a Colorado commission, which had decided that Jack Philips should serve all its customers regardless of ir sexual orientation, demonstrated an "obvious animosity and Unacceptable "towards religion.More information
- Can a baker refuse to make a bridal cake for a gay couple?
- The pie maker who turned down a gay couple divides American supreme
The events date back to July 19, 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins entered Lakewood Patisserie Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, and wanted to order a bridal cake to celebrate ir wedding. The owner refused to arguing that it violated his beliefs. The state justice condemned him for discrimination, but Philips managed to take case to supreme, which in a trial that began last December addressed where religious freedom ends and homophobia begins, if a cake equals art and if message of this It changes according to sexual orientation of client that serves her in her wedding.
The lawyer of Philips, Kristen Waggoner, defended that cake is an artistic piece and, refore, appealing to freedom of expression consecrated by Constitution, no law nor authority can force craftsman to carry out a work contrary to his beliefs Religious. Progressive judges n threw several questions at him. Elena Kagan asked him wher, from his point of view, also hairdressers or makeup artists could reject gay couples, but Waggoner argued that y do not make art and his client, pie maker, yes. Stephen Breyer asked him wher this protection of freedom of expression is applicable when cake he asked for did not contain any message of support for homosexuality. He was also asked if same applies to race and she denied it.
The Baker believes that forcing him to make a cake for homosexuals is forcing him to use his art to celebrate something that violent his faith, in same way he would not do candy with aists slogans. The problem is that his rejection of order of Graig and Mullins has nothing to do with product itself, which is same Jack Philips offer in its establishment to whole world, but with sexual identity of one who buys it. The reasoning opens door for a restaurant chef, for example, to refuse to serve a gay couple who are celebrating ir anniversary in a restaurant claiming that irs is also art.