After reading the article, it is clear that in both cases there was some extent of discrimination. In essence, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, where the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Mullins and Craig who were planning to marry in Massachusetts, highlights that in fact, the cake shop discriminated against them as the business owner, Jack Phillips, refused to make them a cake, citing religious reasons. On the other hand, Pavan v. Smith, highlighted discrimination as the state officials refused to include the names of both lesbian couples in the birth certificate of their child, who was conceived by the help of an anonymous donor. Therefore, both cases highlighted discrimination against the LGBT community, but the first one, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission should be upheld because the Supreme Court acknowledged the presence of discrimination, but the second, Pavan v. Smith, should be repealed as the state officials violated the Obergefell ruling, which recognized birth certificates among rights, responsibilities, and benefits the government confers to all marriages.
Importantly, gay marriages are legal in many states, but encounters discrimination (Infoplease n.p). Discrimination takes many shapes in our society, including discriminating gay couples. As such, if gay couples rights are violated, the Supreme Court should identify it and rule in favor of gay couples, if equality among heterosexual and homosexual marriages shall ever be recognized. In the first case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the court was right to rule against the business owner. The constitution protects citizens against discrimination based on sexual orientation, and thus, the Supreme Court should uphold the ruling to eliminate any future instances of inequality, which as Stoddard (738), highlight, is wrong. It was wrong for Jack Phillips to cite religious reasons was wrong because even religion requires that we should not judge others and love them as neighbors.
In Pavan v Smith, it is important to stress that sexual orientation is irrelevant in determining an individuals capacity to become a good parent, and thus, the couples should be accorded with the right of being a father and a mother (Liptak n.p). Social sciences have established that patience, stability, love, and time to spend with a kid are more critical in good parenting compared to sexual orientation or gender (Brewer, 280. As such, it can be highlighted that both couples should be identified as the father and mother respectively, which should be finalized in the birth certificate. Besides, the first ruling violated the Obergefell ruling, which accords gay couples the right to have their names imprinted in the birth certificate of the child. Therefore, the Supreme Court should uphold the ruling against the cake business but repeal that the case of birth certificates, by including both names.
Works Cited
Brewer, Paul R. "Public opinion about gay rights and gay marriage. International Journal of Public Opinion Research 26.3 (2014): 279-282. Print
Liptak, Adam. Justices to Hear Case on Religious Objections to Same-Sex Marriage. Jun 26 2017. Web. Jun 27 2017.
Stoddard, Thomas. Gay Marriage Makes Them Legal. Current Issues and Enduring Questions. By Sylvan Barnet, Hugo Bedau. Tenth Edition. Bedford/St. Martin's, 2013. 737-739. Print.
The American Gay Rights Movement: A Timeline Infoplease. n.d. Web. Jun, 27 2017.
Request Removal
If you are the original author of this essay and no longer wish to have it published on the customtermpaperwriting.org website, please click below to request its removal:
