Clark, Cristy

English

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a cake for their wedding. Jack Phillips, the owner of the shop, responded by informing them he would not make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Craig and Mullins immediately got up and left. Later they sued Phillips for discrimination

University of Canberra Research Repository

7/21/2020 With that ring, I thee judge: why the law should not allow exceptions on marriage equalityhttps://theconversation.com/with-that-ring-i-thee-judge-why-the-law-should-not-allow-exceptions-on-marriage-equality-66482 1/3AuthorCristy ClarkLecturer in Law, Southern Cross UniversityAcademic rigour, journalistic flairWith that ring, I thee judge: why the law should not allowexceptions on marriage equalityOctober 6, 2016 6.15am AEDTIn July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood,Colorado, to order a cake for their wedding. Jack Phillips, the owner of the shop, responded byinforming them he would not make a cake for a same-sex wedding. Craig and Mullins immediately gotup and left. Later they sued Phillips for discrimination.What if this happened in Australia?While Phillips’ conduct may have been lawful here until 2012, in 2013 the Sex Discrimination Act was amended to explicitly include sexual orientation as a prohibited ground of discrimination. As a result,it is now unlawful for most employers and service providers to deny equal treatment to anyone on thebasis of their sexual orientation.This amendment has been contentious, particularly in light of the current push to legislate formarriage equality. It has been argued by some religious groups that it could result in a breach of theirreligious freedom by forcing them to provide services to LGBTI people.In the US and Ireland there have been headline court cases of bakers refusing to make cakes forsame-sex weddings. Shutterstock7/21/2020 With that ring, I thee judge: why the law should not allow exceptions on marriage equalityhttps://theconversation.com/with-that-ring-i-thee-judge-why-the-law-should-not-allow-exceptions-on-marriage-equality-66482 2/3This is exactly what did happen in Colorado. Craig and Mullins were successful in their legal actionand Phillips was ordered to:… [c]ease and desist from discriminating against … same-sex couples by refusing to sell themwedding cakes or any other product [they] would provide to heterosexual couples.In his judgment, Justice Spencer observed:At first blush, it may seem reasonable that a private business should be able to refuse serviceto anyone it chooses. This view, however, fails to take into account the cost to society and thehurt caused to persons who are denied service simply because of who they are.He went on to explain that US law has interpreted religious freedom narrowly to primarily cover:… activities fundamental to the individual’s religious belief, that do not adversely affect therights of others, and that are not outweighed by the state’s legitimate interests in promotinghealth, safety and general welfare.In dismissing Phillips’ religious freedom arguments, Justice Spencer emphasised that:… [t]o excuse all religiously motivated conduct from state control would permit every citizento become a law unto himself.He noted that:… [c]onceptually, [Phillips’] refusal to serve a same-sex couple due to religious objection tosame-sex weddings is no different from refusing to serve a biracial couple because ofreligious objection to biracial marriage.Some Australian religious groups have expressed concern about this shift towards the strongerprotection of the rights of LGBTI people. Archbishop Anthony Fisher, for example, argues thisprotection risks excessively reducing the space for religious liberty and “licences [the] vilification ofpeople’s conscientious beliefs”.However, such arguments privilege the status quo under which a narrow segment of society have beenallowed to assert their rights and freedoms at the expense of the rights and freedoms of others.Discrimination is rife in Australia. People are regularly denied equal access to both employment onthe grounds of race, parental status, and disability.They are also denied access to services, demonstrated by taxi drivers leaving Indigenous Australians stranded on the street, employers declining to interview people with “ethnic-sounding names”,7/21/2020 With that ring, I thee judge: why the law should not allow exceptions on marriage equalityhttps://theconversation.com/with-that-ring-i-thee-judge-why-the-law-should-not-allow-exceptions-on-marriage-equality-66482 3/3Religion Discrimination Freedom of speech Same-sex marriage Religious freedom Marriage Act Author Q&ASame-sex marriage plebiscitebreastfeeding mothers being asked to leave swimming pools and food courts, and real estate agents refusing housing to Indigenous Australians.Anti-discrimination legislation is a legal response to this ongoing cultural problem. Its gradualexpansion in Australia reflects international human rights law and a vision for a more equal society –one in which everyone can have equal access to employment and services, and no-one will besubjected to the dehumanising experience of being denied equal treatment.Nonetheless, the federal government is reported to be considering the inclusion of “appropriateprotections for religious freedom and conscientious objections” alongside any amendments to theMarriage Act.While it is unclear what these protections might include, the proposal sounds similar to a proposedexemption in Northern Ireland that would allow businesses to refuse service in situations wheresomeone feels they are required to “endorse a same-sex sexual relationship in violation of his/herfaith identity”.The Northern Ireland amendment came after Daniel and Amy McArthur, owners of Ashers Bakery inBelfast, were fined for refusing to provide a cake with a pro-marriage equality slogan. While this casedoes raise some questions around freedom of political expression, the proposed exemption has beencriticised for effectively providing carte blanche to all forms of discrimination against LGBTI people.In finding an appropriate balance between the right to equality and the right to religious freedom,Australia could draw inspiration from US law. It focuses protection on:… activities fundamental to the individual’s religious belief, that do not adversely affect therights of others, and that are not outweighed by the state’s legitimate interests in promotinghealth, safety and general welfare.The right to discriminate against others does not fit this criterion.Cristy Clark will be online for an Author Q&A between 1 and 2pm AEDT on Thursday, October 6,2016. Post your questions in the comments below.

With that ring, I thee judge: why the law should not allow exceptions on marriage equality

https://researchsystem.canberra.edu.au/ws/files/40354514/With_that_ring_I_thee_judge_why_the_law_should_not_allow_exceptions_on_marriage_equality.pdf

With that ring, I thee judge: why the law should not allow exceptions on marriage equality

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Canberra Research Repository