Right to Refuse Service
December 10, 2018
Controversy has appeared between the rights of businesses and personal liberties. With the ruling of the Supreme Court case in 2017 of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of baker Jack Phillips, who refused to serve a gay couple their wedding cake as it went against his religious beliefs as a devout Christian. Although this may seem like a step in the wrong direction to some, this is one of the things that this country was founded upon and allows us to continue to be the free nation that we enjoy living in daily.
The first amendment guarantees United States citizens their right to freedom of speech, expression, religion, freedom of the press, and right to assemble. This, obviously, being the first amendment, plays an extremely important role in any democracy, as a country with censorship and persecution of those who do not follow the norms set by the government is a tyrannical one. The decision made by the Supreme Court allowing Phillips this right further supports our constitutional rights and shows that our government has not, and shows no sign of straying from the rights that the people of this nation are granted, making America so great.
The case of Phillips truly highlights what we need to have in a democracy. Many people of both sides of the political spectrum have lost sight of what this country must maintain to allow its citizens the rights it truly promises to them and to allow the United States to continue to distance itself from becoming any other authoritarian government prevalent in today’s society. However, the ruling in Mr. Phillips favor shows that as a nation, we continue to be strong and truly allow everyone their own rights, with the gay couple obviously still being able to go to another bakery, and to allow Phillips to continue to stand by his beliefs and morals that he and his family have formed over generations.
A business should have control over who it serves, as their actions towards certain groups of people may affect their business. In Mr. Phillip’s case, this was such a strong belief of his that he took it to the Supreme Court, obviously by doing so putting it under constant pressure by the media and giving his business constant exposure (in many cases, negative) it shows that he truly believed in his case and was given his freedoms because of this.
Thus, the United States must continue to support rights of all people, straight or gay, Christian or Muslim, and to allow each individual person to have their own opinions and freedoms to back them up with. Religious freedoms must continue to prevail, and people must continue to express their beliefs in a peaceful, non-harmful way. Although one side of the equation may be unhappy with a ruling, one of the major issues of our country is its division between different groups of people, showing the importance of allowing one another to have their own ideals and beliefs, no matter how odd or wrong they may seem to you; even if it is just for the good of our nation’s democracy and the continuance of each and every American’s rights as an individual to be withheld.
Selene • Mar 4, 2019 at 9:23 am
I agree with the fact that religious freedoms should be protected. No one has to be forced to serve anyone that they don´t want to based on their religious beliefs. But like all things, there is a degree to how much religious freedom can be used and how much civil rights liberty can be used. If I were the baker, I don´t think I´d take things too far, Id probably just tell them that my schedule is busy and that they can go somewhere else, if they please. Because I respect their beliefs as long as they respect mine. And if I was the couple, I would not go as so far to sue the baker, because they have their beliefs, and I need to respect that, there is no use of arguing someone´s religious beliefs legally and morally. There are plenty more bakers who would serve a gay couple, rather than none, it´s really not a big deal. The moral of the lesson, people should just respect each other´s personal beliefs even if they disagree with it. It´s a pretty well written, nicely neutral and clear standing article. It gives a basic understanding of law and democracy to express freedom of speech and will.