Consumer Vs America

In 2012, a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado and requested a cake for their wedding. The owner of the store declined to create a cake for the couple, stating he would not do so because of his religious beliefs. The couple filed with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and claimed they had been discriminated against based on sexual orientation. This case concerns the 14th and 1st amendments. The 14th amendment (and the Civil Rights Act of 1964) prohibits discrimination against individuals based on items such as sexual orientation. Had the same-sex couple’s 14th amendment rights been violated because they had been refused service? Or, was the store owner using

With such a relevant case to current times and a necessary one to define the future of interactions between businesses and citizens of all races and sexual orientations, clarification can only help the future of these types of interactions. The court will most likely respond with a 5-4 decision in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop. As with the conservative justices, most will likely support that of Masterpiece Cakeshop. Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, and the newly appointed Associate Justice Neil Goursch would most likely choose to support the freedom of religion and the right to refuse service, most likely quoting Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, as they tend to stay on the conservative side of the argument. Whereas Associate Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg, Associate Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, and Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor would most likely stick with the argument that this is discrimination of gay Americans, most likely quoting Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith during the proceedings. Chief Justice John G. Roberts would most likely maintain that Masterpiece Cakeshop was not in the wrong. The real decision on whether or not Mr. Phillips was right in refusing to produce a wedding cake for the couple would come down to Anthony M. Kennedy. As Kennedy often takes the position of swing vote in the Supreme Court it is

This article “Baked in the cake” is about a couple being discriminated because they’re a same - sex marriage. Phillips came across Charlie Craig and David Mullins in July 12, 2012 and declined to bake them a wedding cake because of his religious beliefs. Richard Wolf states that Philip states "I feel that the Bible is clear — what God defines marriage as," and, "For me to violate that would be

‘In “Drawing a Line in the ‘Gay Wedding Cake case”, the author John Corvino says that Jack Phillips, the baker who refused to sell a wedding cake for a gay couple, was being discriminatory against the customers. He didn’t refuse to sell the cake because he just doesn’t support homosexuality but because he didn’t like the fact that a gay couple went to his bakery. Although Phillips claims his actions are protected by the first amendment of the Constitution, the truth is that he was violating the Constitution by discriminating customers based on their sexual orientation.

In July 2012 a same sex couple went to a local cake shop known as Masterpiece cakeshop. The couple (Charlie craig and David Mullins) requested a cake to be made for their upcoming wedding but were refused service based on the fact that they were a homosexual couple. The couple decided to press charges on the shop based on discrimination under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014. Following the attempted charges the division issued a notice of probable cause; Craig and mullins then filed a complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in violation of

The law forbids the discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation however, this is too broad and does not state the amount of discrimination needed in order to violate the law. Significantly similar to the Brandenburg vs ohio case in which Brandenburg made a speech at a Klan rally and was later convicted under an Ohio criminal syndicalism law. The law made illegal advocating "crime, sabotage, violence, or unlawful methods of terrorism as a means of accomplishing industrial or political reform," as well as assembling "with any society, group, or assemblage of persons formed to teach or advocate the doctrines of criminal syndicalism." However, the supreme court found this unconstitutional and stated that states can only restrict speech that "is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action, and is likely to incite or produce such action." Due to the fact that the bakery shop owners speech was not inciting or producing imminent lawless action and did not prove to be danger too the same sex couple, he had the right to free speech and was protected by the first amendment. In addition to this, the Accommodation law violates the free religious exercise of the shop owner because he feels given his religious beliefs making the cake for the same sex couple would be extremely wrong since homosexuality is a sin in his

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullens were denied a wedding cake from Masterpiece Cakeshop due to the owner’s, Jack C. Phillips, religious beliefs. Phillips reasons were that his baking was meant to be art unto God and that creating a cake for a same-sex couple would displease God, which he reinforced with the fact that Colorado had not legalized same-sex marriage. The couple then filed charges with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act: this legislation prohibits any public accommodation from denying any person services based on gender, sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. The court had ruled in favor of the couple and ordered Phillips to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, but to "change its company

The case of The Masterpiece Cake Shop vs. Colorado will be argued in court later on this year. This case revolves around the gay couple, Craig and Mullens, who attempted to order a wedding cake for their celebration. To their dismay, the cake shop owner refused to service the couple. Phillips stated that he did not want to design a cake for a same sex couple. Unfortunately, his actions were illegal in the state of Colorado, or were they? Feeling that Phillips had violated their civil rights, the couple filed a complaint against Phillips, the shop owner, with the Civil Rights Commission. The complaint stated that Phillips had violated their rights by refusing to service them solely because they were a same sex couple. Phillips was ordered

In the case of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the petitioners, versus Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., the respondents, the court sides with the petitioners. This claim is based upon an argument meant to highlight the discriminatory nature of refusing service within a public accommodation. The actions of Masterpiece Cakeshop, first, violate the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Law as the bakery exists as a public accommodation, rather than an individualized entity. Second, it is invalid to believe Phillips was discriminatory on the grounds of conduct rather than character as one cannot exist without the other; thereby, Phillips cannot choose to abstain from baking cakes for same-sex marriages due to religious beliefs without denying service to same-sex

In “ Drawing a Line in the ‘Gay Wedding Cake’ Case” by John Corvino discusses the dispute between the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop and Charlie Craig and his fiancé David Mullins. Craig and his fiancé were awfully discriminated by the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop as he refused to make a cake for the couple's wedding. He refused due to his religious beliefs and claims he was not discriminating based on sexual orientation as he offered to sell them items like a birthday cake or cookies.

In July of 2012, a same-sex couple by the names of Charlie Craig and David Mullins requested for Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, to bake a wedding cake for them. However, Phillips refused to bake the cake due to his religious beliefs about same-sex marriage. Craig and Mullins sued Masterpiece Cakeshop, stating that the shop was violating the Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based off of sexual orientation. Jack Phillips, on the other hand, defends himself, citing the first amendment and religious freedom. The Supreme Court will make the

After Mr.Mullins and Mr. Craig leave the cake shop they start the process to sue Mr. Phillips because he is discriminating against a group of people. Colorado has a state law that says a business that discriminates against another group can be closed by the state. Due to state law being questioned the case is moved to the Supreme Court. Mr. Phillips’s point is that his talent of baking cakes is a art, and he would be happy to sell the couple a pre made cake or a custom cake for another occasion other than a wedding because it is against his religion. Mr. Phillips is using the First Amendment freedom of speech to speak out against the marriage of the same gender because it is against his religion. On the flipped side Colorado is siding with Mr. Mullins and Mr. Craig because state law says no discriminating at all in any business in the state of Colorado. Only 21 states have this law that protects marriage of the same gender. The Civil Rights Act doesn't protect gay marriage it is left up to the states to decide if it’s a law. The Trump administration is in favor of Mr. Phillips which is rare because the Justice Department is ruling against a nondiscrimination law. In the end Supreme Court

In 2012, gay couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado to purchase a cake for their wedding. Their request was denied by the owner, Jack Phillips, because he is Christian and does not support gay marriage. He sent them away because he believes that since making a cake for a gay wedding goes against his religious beliefs, he doesn’t have to make it. The couple felt discriminated because of who they are, and filed civil rights charges against Phillips. David and Charlie say that Phillips shouldn’t be able to deny them goods from a public shop just because of their sexual orientation. To this Phillips explains that he would be happy to serve the couple or any LGBT person regular baked goods, such as a birthday cake or cookies, but he refuses to use his talents to create a cake for a religious celebration in which he doesn’t support. But is he allowed to do this? According to Phillips he should be protected by the first amendment, freedom of speech. Baking and decorating cakes is his art and a way of expressing himself, and he doesn’t in any way want to express an acceptance for something he doesn’t agree with. The couple, along with various gay rights groups, don’t see this as any kind of excuse for turning down and discriminating customers in a shop open to the public, which should include anyone and everyone. It’s a matter of equality, and Charlie and David aren’t being treated the same way as others customers, which is unfair. The couple

This case is important to Phillip and Masterpiece Cakeshop because of the his freedom to practice religion and his freedom of speech. Phillip is a Christian that believes God works as he chooses, even going as far as to say “[God] has chosen this bakery to do a lot of different things that we had never planned and that we would never want to stop”. When the two men came in to ask for a cake for their same-sex wedding, Phillip had to deny making them the cake as he did not want to design a cake that would promote something that is against his faith (“Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission”). Phillip also believes that since his cakes are more than cakes, but they are also art. If the government were to make Phillip make cakes that go against his beliefs, they would be stopping his freedom of speech (Liptak).

Business ethics; what does it really mean? Some say it’s an oxymoron and the two words can’t exist together as a concept. These people will tell you that within business, there is no room for ethics and ethical behavior. Others will explain the need for businesses to practice good ethical and moral values within their company, and the importance of this to our society. For me, in the past, I honestly never gave the idea or term a second thought. Now after learning so much of business in our society I have a firm understanding of business ethics and I’ve developed my own personal view that reflects it. At the roots of proper business ethics is undoubtedly, understanding. As with life, all truths and therefore all ‘rights’, come with