Living in a generation that encourages the support of feminism, the “black lives matter” protests, immigration, the LGBTQ community, etc., the push for an emphasis on equal rights and equal opportunity is stronger than ever. In today’s society, it is generally viewed that the action of refusing service to an individual based off of their sexual orientation is not only discouraged but also illegal. But is refusing a homosexual couple a cake for their wedding acceptable if it goes against the provider’s religious beliefs?

Being a strong supporter in freedom of speech and the right to practice one’s religion, but also in equal rights for the LGBTQ community, the Masterpiece Cake Shop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case sparked my immediate attention.

Being one of the most controversial topics I have seen in a long time, I couldn’t help but do my research and see how this case played out. Setting all the legal talk and law technicalities aside and after watching lots of interview videos, in hopes to get a more personal understanding of where each side was coming from, I decided to develop my own opinion on the matter based only off what the actual individuals involved in the case had to say.

After repeatedly watching multiple interview videos I was able to interpret that a gay couple went into Jack Phillip’s bakery, who happens to be a devoted Christian, to discuss purchasing a cake for their wedding.

Phillips told the couple that he could not make them a cake for their wedding because he, “does not [create] cakes for same-sex weddings,” and that he doesn’t see this as a case of discrimination because, from his standpoint, discrimination would be telling someone that they are not welcome in his shop because of their sexual orientation.

Furthermore, Phillips argues that this is NOT what he did. He states that, “there are events that [he] doesn’t create cakes for, and this was just one of them,” and that denying service for an event is not an act of discrimination.

As a result, the couple expressed their embarrassment and felt as though they were being denied a wedding cake because of who they are. Once Phillips explained his reasoning in an interview with CNN Politics by stating that he, “didn’t want to use [his] artistic talents to create something that went against [his] Christian faith,” people began to question whether or not Phillips should be punished for practicing his freedom of religion.

ADF Senior Counsel Kristen Waggoner, who argued on Phillip’s behalf, states that “artists shouldn’t be forced to express what the government dictates.” Although this is a very agreeable concept, the disappointed homosexual couple claims that they never asked Phillips to create a “piece of artwork” or a “statement” expressing their sexual orientation, but rather just asked him to make them a typical wedding cake. Based off of these statements and my interpretation alone, the homosexual couple never asked Phillips to create a cake that represented their homosexuality.

Therefore, Phillips was never technically forced to “express something that the government dictates,” and was never forced to “create anything that went against his Christian faith” (unless that includes a cake). It would be different if the couple asked Phillips to create a cake that visually advertised the support of same-sex marriage, but they didn’t.

Phillips verbally expresses his belief that marriage is a religious ceremony, and in his eyes, creating a cake for a same-sex wedding is the same as creating the centerpiece for an event that he doesn’t believe should happen.

Although the logic behind Phillip’s actions may be completely understandable (especially for people in the Christian community), I believe that refusing service to an individual because of their sexual orientation is not much (if not at all) different than refusing service to an individual based on their cultural beliefs.

As stated by the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, culture is defined as, “the customary beliefs, social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group.” So technically, Phillips refused service to a couple based solely on their cultural beliefs. Thus supporting the couple’s claim that they were being denied a cake “because of who [they] are.”

As Phillips continues to argue that he was denying service to their wedding and not the couple themselves, I still ask myself the same question: is this still considered an illegal act of discrimination? Based off of the Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Communication, discrimination specifically refers to, “behavior that denies equal treatment to people because of their membership in some group.”

In an interpretation of these definitions alone, it becomes apparent that although Phillips was denying to make a cake for an event and not the couple themselves, he was still behaviorally acting in a way that denies the homosexual couple the same treatment he would give to a heterosexual couple.

Once again, setting all the legal technicalities aside and viewing this case from an emotional standpoint, the reasoning behind Phillip’s discriminatory actions was reasonable but still not valid. Regardless of his religion, beliefs, and reasoning, Phillips committed an act of discrimination, and doing so is against the law.

To put it in another perspective, if an interracial couple was denied a wedding cake because the baker simply did not believe in interracial marriages, then a lot more people would fall victim to this scenario. I absolutely support the right to practice one’s religion and speak freely of their beliefs, but I can’t help but sympathize for the fact that a couple’s excitement of planning their wedding was jeopardized simply because they were proudly expressing who they are.

The couple was requesting nothing more than a traditional cake for their wedding. If one cannot agree with another’s belief, it is still expected of any human being to mutually respect it. If not the belief then at least the individual, as we are all equally human beings capable of empathetic communication and deserve the same amount of respect.

The freedom we have as U.S. citizens to practice one’s religion and the freedom of speech give us the empowering opportunity to preach what is morally right; let us remember that this does NOT give us the position to use these rights with the intention to take away the equal opportunities of other U.S. citizens.