Free Essay Example: Supreme Court Side With Baker

The Supreme Court of Washington ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who initially had refused to create a wedding cake gay family. The decision that was made by the court sounded complex and kept ringing in people's minds, whether the business can turn discriminative against lesbians or gays as per the First Amendment protection. The first amendment is simply assimilated as part of the bill of rights, protecting not only the freedom of religion but also speech and definitely press.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The court furthermore offered a space, for instance, to protect the essential rights to same-sex marriages or either explain how the state can take a step regulating business processes to be executed based on the religious affiliations. The chief justice changed perceiving on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission was in a case initially ruled oppositely to the baker; it demystified his hostility to religion since the remarks of one member among them. Religion should not only be seen on one angel of inclination or for instance, in a general assumption.

The chief justice thereby renewed the commitments to for the rights gay people deserved. The Chief Justice could thereby air out grievances attached to main prerequisite issues. After the consideration of the Colorado civil rights, it seemed to present barker with a sharp choice of significant commitments. The chief justice, on the other part, had come up with a rule protecting both gays and lesbians at the same time. Moreover, the Chief Justice decided to align on the third path that usually applies to the case as the main issue in the court by raising out that the Civil Rights Commission that ruled against baker had been tainted by the religious orientations. He further echoed out that the decision made was somewhat inappropriate, and there was a need to be completely overturned. He further claimed that the treatment by civil rights was straightforward in a way that it had some serious elements of hostility towards the religious beliefs behind the motivation of the objection,

The Chief Justices' rule paved the way for the recognition of the rights protecting same-sex marriage, which he termed it as an open, and search discussion between the opposes between of same-sex marriage on a religious basis and on the other side those concerned with the consideration of those unions as a necessity.

When the argument of the Colorado civil rights was argued on, the Chief Justice felt ashamed with the present choices that he claimed that better for better access. Through his questions raised a concern that his vote was not among the four that was in need to add the case to the court record.

The intensity of the majority in court was the fact that the statement to the scope of decision reasoning. Some of the new Chief justices in the court supported the opinion aired by Kennedy. The ruling has already permitted two men to get married in Massachusetts. Despite the pressure to stop the two from proceeding with the marriage plan. The court made a ruling that the speech rights had no violations at all. The proposition made by Kennedy encapsulate no discussion of the issue and simply focused on what he perceived to be flaws in proceedings before the commission. He argued that the panel members had argued with a straightforwardly impermissible hostility to the held religious belief. One of the chief justices' remark claimed that religious freedom had been employed in the justifications of all sorts of discrimination in the entire history of slavery or in the holocaust. The chief Justice, moreover, indicated in writings that the sentiment was somewhat inappropriate for commission shared with the responsibility of transparent and neutral enforcement of Colorado civil rights. Some even made a remark that the ruling geared towards acting in favor of those opposing the permit of same sex-marriages.

Kennedy also projected in his writings that the commission had acted in what he called an inconsistent manner involving an opponent of same-sex marriage. The commission may have irritated the same-sex couples to the extent of raising some complaints in society. He made so through conclusions that the baker acted within the law in the act of declining an act that derailed gay individuals. In combating the polar opinions, it was debated on how central the last opinion was aimed towards the decision of the court. In another panel of Justices, it was agreed upon the differing treatment could be justified while on the other domain, some of the Justices that the two different cases portrayed the same and salient legal features. On different opinions that seemed to be, conquering highlights that it would have ruled in favor of those opposing same-sex marriages since it violated his faith as well as the constitutional rights. Moreover, some even opposed totally claiming that the majority had not adopted the ruling.

The Alliance Defending Freedom represented those opposing for same-sex marriages argued that the ruling was a victory for religious liberty. One of the lawyers argues that the Government hostility towards certain groups of faith has no room in the society in all cases despite the fact that Colorado as a State was somehow opposing the religious beliefs about marriages. The court possessed the right to condemn the act towards such a belief. It is vital to tolerate and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are a prerequisite in contemporary society.

Essentially, the American Civil Liberties Union termed that it accepted the parts of majority opinion supporting legal protections of both lesbians and gay men. The American Civil Liberties Union is motivated at fighting government abuse and at the same time, offering protection of freedom, which may include speech as well as religious practices. Some of the gay rights groups took a negative view of the decision whereby they claimed that the court offered to antagonize encouragement to the people who would deny special rights to lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and jointly questioning categories of people. The L.G.B.T& Q people have all that it takes to claim that love is a vital reason in making them get married. Gay marriages lie under the protection of the law at all times; more so, it gives the right to start a family and settle despite the societal pressures limiting them. Lastly, it facilitates a sense of equality and fairness at all times. The chief executive promised to resist the coming effort that automatically seeks to turn the ruling a broader license to make a discrimination.

According to Kennedy, Colorado's ruling protects gay persons exactly the same way in can have the ability to protect other people who can acquire any kinds of products, as well as services they choose under common terms as well as the conditions, are provided to the general public.

In conclusion, every person is in society is granted an opportunity to participate in all the democratic movements with no limitations in any case. The legal system is thereby a vital tool to fight and claim for our rights and freedoms people to experience a free and fair treatment under the law. Were it not for the law, some of the people could perceive as being in slavery and inferior in society. Those that their views are hinged towards respect of their religion have a right to defend the religious notions they deserve. On the other hand, L.G.B.T can freely choose what they want and what they feel is right for their general welfare. Thereby, all the people are usually an equal share in society, disregard any possible antagonizing opinions. In order to attain the development and keep on soaring to the greater heights, the government should embrace the treatment of all the people in equity-oriented approaches. It is also a high opportunity for people to collaborate in fighting for their own rights and freedoms. At the climax, no individual should be left in a standstill and a stationary position towards further advancements. Religious beliefs should definitely be given a priority since it is encompassed moral values, general spiritual replenishment, and social uprightness among other important and viable aspects. Religion should also be perceived in a positive way since it can be applied in legal, governmental processes and in law-making bodies. It is also crucial that religious affiliations be taken into account because it makes people realize the need for freedom of choice at all times. The religious principles at the same time can straighten crooked and unfair practices in the government.