Nowadays, every business expresses its political and social views differently. Chick-fil-A is one of those examples, as they have expressed their views on LGBT rights, which they tried to reverse. The complications surrounding that aspect are based on cases similar to the Colorado bakery denying services to an LGBTQ couple on the basis of religious beliefs. The following text will review all of the cases thoroughly.
Chick-fil-A gained notoriety by making controversial statements on LGBT rights based on the owners’ religious beliefs. They would donate large sums of money to confront same-sex marriages and support opposite-sex ones (Severson, 2012). The uproar grew stronger when the founder’s son said that he wanted to promote the Biblical idea of families. As a result, there were protests and requests for city halls to pay attention to the situation.
In 2018, a Colorado bakery called Masterpiece Cakeshop rejected the request to make a cake for a same-sex wedding. The reason they used to justify it was that doing so contradicted their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court defended the bakery, saying that it cannot be forced to proceed with the needed service (Liptak, 2018). This decision contradicted the Court’s self-proclaimed and enthusiastic desire to further defend LGBT rights.
A similar case with a different outcome happened when florist Baronelle Stutzman was asked to create floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding. However, she declined, saying it seriously contradicted her religious beliefs (ACLU, 2021). There were several attempts to hand the case to the US and Washington Supreme Courts, which came to a conclusion in 2021. Stutzman settled it with the couple in November by paying 5000 dollars. However, there are some complications related to those legal issues.
Primarily, the Court did not define how it would face similar cases, nor did it instruct how business owners should behave, given the legalization of same-sex marriage back in 2015. It was still unclear whether business owners who use religious and free speech-related reasons to deny such services would be favored or denied instantly (Ashar, 2021). This creates a confusing and complicated position for the laws in the US.
Another complication is represented by the First Amendment’s Free Exercise of Religion Clause. It states that Congress is forbidden from making a law that either respects or bans an existing religion and its practices. It was meant to prevent biases towards religion, both negative and positive (Cornell Law School, n.d.). The countless questions regarding the implications surrounding LGBT discrimination under religious justifications are still unanswered, as the lines between violating the rights of LGBT and religious individuals are quite unclear.
This sparks a debate as to when it would be justifiable to validate discriminatory business cases based on the Amendment. The difficulty of the response to it can be referred to by the Katzenbach v McClung Case when a restaurant used the Commerce Clause to justify discriminating against black clients (LexisNexis, n.d.). The verdict by the Court stated that McClung was banned from denying service to African Americans. Thus, promoting racial segregation based on religion would be wrong.
These situations are further complicated by the following two moments. First: in spite of having legalized same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court has not always fought against cases that would limit LGBT rights, as seen by Fulton v Philadelphia and Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado (Ashar, 2021). Second, this raises the question of whether discrimination would have been defended by the court, if the same reasons were used to promote racial segregation. Although a suitable compromise between religious people and LGBT individuals has not been made, there is valid point to make.
Without a doubt, the right to exercise religion freely is to be defended. Nonetheless, it is not to be used at the expense of basic human rights. In a worst-case scenario, continuing the current approach could lead to more discriminatory situations. A proper solution must be found, however, the current one is invalid, since it only deteriorates the unfair position of minorities. Thus, it is best to never use the Free Exercise Clause to defend unjust cases similar to the aforementioned ones.
References
ACLU. (2021). Arlene’s flowers et al v. Washington et al. American Civil Liberties Union.
Ashar, L. C. (2021). Supreme Court cases send mixed messages about LGBTQ rights. American Public University Edge.
Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Free Exercise Clause.
LexisNexis. (n.d.). Katzenbach v. McClung | Case brief for law school | LexisNexis. Community.
Liptak, A. (2018). In narrow decision, Supreme Court sides with Baker who turned away gay couple (Published 2018). The New York Times.
Severson, K. (2012). Chick-fil-A thrust back into spotlight on gay rights. The New York Times.