By Ria Tabacco Mar OCTOBER 24, 2017 | 1:00 PM

 
Five years ago, Dave Mullins and Charlie Craig walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop, a Lakewood, Colorado, bakery to purchase a cake for their wedding reception. But the bakery’s owner refused to serve them solely because they’re a same-sex couple.
Colorado courts found that the bakery discriminated against Dave and Charlie, violating a state law that says businesses open to the public can’t turn away customers based on sexual orientation. Now, the bakery is asking for a “constitutional exemption” —permission to violate the state law based on the owner’s objection to serving gay people.
Here are three things to know about the case, which will be heard by the Court on December 5.

Is the bakery’s argument new? 

No. In the 1960s, Piggie Park barbecue restaurant argued that its owner’s religious beliefs meant it could refuse to serve Black customers. In the 1970s and 1980s, schools claimed that they should be allowed to pay women less than men based on the belief that men should be the head of the household. Time and again, courts have recognized that religious views, no matter how deeply felt, don’t entitle any of us to discriminate. The same is true today.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMWLawbBlOc&feature=youtu.be

Does this violate the bakery's First Amendment rights?

No. The Colorado anti-discrimination law doesn’t tell the bakery how to make its cakes. What it says is that if the bakery chooses to sell cakes, it can’t refuse to sell them to certain people based on their sexual orientation. The ACLU is proud to defend the First Amendment freedoms of speech and religion. But religious freedom doesn’t give anyone the right to discriminate. If it did, any business would be free to discriminate against almost any of us — members of minority faiths, women, racial minorities, LGBT people — solely based on the owner’s views.

What’s at stake in this case?

This fall the Supreme Court will decide whether businesses that open their doors to the public have a constitutional right to discriminate.
People have deeply held beliefs about all kinds of things. If those beliefs gave anyone the right to discriminate, a tailor shop could refuse to alter a business suit for women, or a bus company could refuse to drive people of different faiths to work. If the bakery has a constitutional right to discriminate, then today it’s Dave and Charlie, tomorrow it could be you, your family members, your friends and your loved ones. Any of us could be turned away simply because of who we are.

WASHINGTON — The American Civil Liberties Union today filed its brief in the Supreme Court in a case in which a Colorado bakery refused to serve a same-sex couple seeking a cake for their wedding reception.
The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, will be heard at the Supreme Court on December 5th.
The Colorado courts found that the bakery violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination law by refusing to serve Charlie Craig and David Mullins when they walked into the bakery in July 2012 to inquire about cakes for their wedding reception. In its brief, the ACLU argues that the First Amendment does not give a business open to the public the right to discriminate against its customers in violation of state law.
“As a nation and as a state, we decided decades ago that businesses that are open to the public should be open to everyone on the same terms,” said ACLU of Colorado Legal Director Mark Silverstein. “A ruling allowing discrimination in this case would have implications far beyond LGBT people.  It would put in jeopardy longstanding protections against discrimination here in Colorado and across the country.”
Under Colorado law, businesses open to the public like Masterpiece Cakeshop may not refuse service based on factors including race, religion, or sexual orientation. After lower courts ruled in Mullins and Craig’s favor, the bakery requested that the Supreme Court review the case.
“This is not about the cake. Charlie and David walked into the cake shop and were turned away because of who they are,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the ACLU. “The stakes could not be higher. A ruling against them at the Supreme Court would not just encourage other businesses to engage in discriminatory practices: It would enshrine a constitutional right to discriminate.”
The American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Colorado, and the Denver firm King & Greisen represent Mullins and Craig in the case.
Resources:

Read the ACLU brief: https://www.aclu.org/legal-document/craig-and-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop-brief-respondents-charlie-craig-and-david

Visit the case page: https://www.aclu.org/cases/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop

 

https://soundcloud.com/thepurplestatereport/episode-7-were-all-together-...
Subscribe to our podcast.

On today’s episode, John sits down with David Cole, ACLU national Legal Director. Mr. Cole oversees the ACLU’s U.S. Supreme Court docket. He discusses the cases that will be decided during what he calls “A huge session at the Supreme Court” and the wide implications of their outcomes. Also, John has a news update on an investigation into abusive practices at a court in Alamosa.

Call To Action: Alejandra highlights the importance of participating in local elections. For more information on how to participate and help ACLU of Colorado turn out voters, email Alejandra at [email protected]

Read: Colorado's Alamosa Municipal Court Tramples on the Rights of Poor People

Click here to read the report  Justice Derailed.

The Purple State Report is brought to you by the ACLU of Colorado. Our show was produced by Vanessa Michel, Alejandra Garza, and John Krieger with original theme music by Pablo Novelas. Additional music by Charles Bradley.  If you have feedback or suggestions for future episodes email us at [email protected]. We’ll be back in two weeks with another episode of The Purple State Report—and remember; stay engaged, stay connected, and stay vigilant.