Freedom of Speech and Freedom of Religion in United States

Extract

[...] In spite of this, it mostly prevents anyone from discriminating. Indeed, the law prevented Bill Jack from creating a discriminating cake and thus a discriminating situation. In the Masterpiece Cakeshopcase, the couple could actually go to another bakery and have another wedding cake, the discrimination would have been toward the order but not the couple itself, but in the Bill Jack case, if the bakery owner would have agreed to do such a cake, it would have created a direct discrimination toward the LGBTQ community. [...]

[...] For where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to oppress and persecute the rest.' From this, resulted in the separation of church and state consecrated in the first amendment to the wording ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof'. Thus, freedom of religion is acted. We can observe that what is referred to as the Constitution's Religion Clauses protects this freedom in two different ways: the establishment clause prevents the government from supporting any faith nor religion while the free exercise clause, on the one hand, provides the right to practise any religion freely as long as it does not run afoul of ‘public moral' or ‘compelling' government interest according to the 1944 Prince V. [...]

[...] Finally, On June Jack Phillips, cake artists and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, won his case before the U.S. Supreme Court, both liberal and conservative justices siding with Jack in a 7-2 decision. This way, Justice Gorsuch wrote in his concurring opinion that ‘The Constitution protects not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation of civil authorities. It protects them all'. Short Comparative Between Masterpiece Piece's and Bill Jack's Cases We can see that Bill Jack law application views proved to be true in some points. [...]

[...] He would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same sex marriages. At the time, the state of Colorado did not recognize same sex marriages. Following the refusal to create a cake for their wedding, the couple files a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in accordance with the Colorado Anti-discrimination Act (CADA). Phillips argues that requiring him to design a cake for a gay wedding would violate his free speech rights because it would have him expressing a message with which he doesn't agree with, namely a message endorsing same sex marriage. [...]

[...] The Commission declared the company guilty of discrimination based on sexual orientation. In 2012, the decision was upheld by the New Mexico Court of Appeal. The latter confirmed the decision. Before the Supreme Court of New Mexico, the ACLU – American Civil Liberties Union – which is an association fighting for people's rights and liberties filed an amicus brief in support of Vanessa Willock's suit. The plaintiff's argument was that taking photographs for hire – as the studio did – is a commercial subject and therefore cannot characterise its own expressive activity. The Supreme court ruled against the Studio. [...]