INTRODUCTION
Jack Phillips’ is a man of deep religious faith, combining his strong religious beliefs with the cakes he makes in his own bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop. Each cake Phillips’ makes it meticulously crafted through a series of sketching, sculpting, and hand-painting as he believes these cake to be a form of artistic expression. However, just as any artist’s work is personal to them, Phillips’ too focuses heavily on what the cake, which he considers his art, will represent and does not produce cakes that contrast with his personal beliefs.
The issue here is that Phillips’ denied respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins’ request to create a cake honoring their same-sex marriage. In doing so, he would be violating his own religious beliefs. As granted by the First Amendment, Phillips’ has the right to do this under both the protection of Free Speech, as cake making is an inherent form of artistic expression, and the Free Exercise clause.
The Colorado Court of Appeals understood the artistic quality of cake-making, but claimed that Phillips’ custom cakes did not fall under
…show more content…
Under the Court’s prior interpretation of the doctrine, thsi includes the prevention of governmental entities form compelling the speech of private citizens. This coincides with our notion that Jack Phillips should not be compelled via the CADA and the Commission decision on its basis to express beliefs that he does not stand for. For example, within the Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston, the Court issued that private speech cannot be undermined by public accommodation. In Justice David H. Souter’s own words compelling private speech for public accommodation "violate[s] the fundamental First Amendment rule that a speaker has the autonomy to choose the content of his own message and, conversely, to decide what not to