Gay wedding cake Supreme Court case could be influenced by past litigation
The Supreme Court on Tuesday heard
oral arguments in a potentially landmark case that pits religious
freedom against anti-discrimination laws.
The controversy began when Jack
Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, refused to create a
wedding cake for a same-sex couple in 2012, citing his religious
beliefs. While he maintains that he serves anyone who comes into his
shop, he does not cater to every event.
A state civil rights commission sanctioned Phillips after the gay couple filed a formal complaint.“This case has never been about cakes. It’s about the rights of gay people to receive equal service in businesses and not be afraid of being turned away because of who they are,” David Mullins, who attempted to commission Phillips to bake a wedding cake in 2012, told Fox News. “It’s about basic access to public life.”
After nearly 90 minutes of oral arguments, the Supreme Court justices appeared to be equally divided along ideological lines about the case. A ruling is expected by June 2018.
Here are two other cases that could be instrumental for the justices’ decision.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges was the landmark 2015 Supreme Court case that made same-sex marriage legal across the country. The nation’s highest court determined that the 14th Amendment guaranteed same-sex couples could obtain marriage licenses.
Supporters of gay marriage rally in front of the Supreme Court ahead of its landmark decision to legalize it nationwide.
(Reuters/Joshua Roberts)
Chief Justice John Roberts along with Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and the late Antonin Scalia dissented.
Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc.
In 1964, two African-Americans were refused service at a Piggie Park drive-in in Columbia, S.C., because of their race. In the civil rights lawsuit that followed, Piggie Park owner Maurice Bessinger justified the refusal to serve black customers based on his religious belief opposing "any integration of the races whatsoever."By the time Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. made it to the Supreme Court in 1968, the issue was the award of fees to the lawyers representing the black South Carolinians who sued Bessinger's restaurants. But in a footnote to its unsigned 8-0 opinion, the court called the religious freedom argument and Bessinger's other defenses "patently frivolous."
Civil rights attorneys have pointed to that footnote as a possible guide for current justices regarding the gay cake case.
No comments:
Post a Comment