# data[].attributes.body
In this case, a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, went to Masterpiece Cakeshop and requested that a cake be baked for their wedding, The owner of the shop, Jack C. Phillips, refused because they were gay and it was against his religion. The couple then filed for charges of discrimination, stating that they faced discrimination for sexual orientation under the CADA (Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act). They also complained that they had faced discrimination in a public place. Lower courts ruled in favor of the couple and said that Phillips violated Colorado's law. This case was first dismissed by the Supreme Court and relisted for further discussion. The Supreme Court has decided to take the case and it will be heard in the October term.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-to-take-case-on-baker-who-refused-to-sell-wedding-cake-to-gay-couple/2017/06/26/0c2f8606-0cde-11e7-9d5a-a83e627dc120_story.html?utm_term=.124ba9c044d1

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [SCOTUSbrief]

# data[].attributes.body
Phillips claims that by forcing his cake shop to make a cake for a gay wedding goes against the First Amendment, specifically freedom of religion, since he does not want to be a part of something God does not support.

# data[].attributes.body
The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from violation a person's rights of due process and equal protection, which limits certain powers from treating their employees unequally due to religion, race, and sex.

# data[].attributes.body
When filing their complaint, Craig and Mullins stated that the cake shop owner had violated the CADA, more specifically the Sexual Orientation Employment Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, religion, race, sex, etc.

# data[].attributes.headline
Video Supporting Plaintiff - State v. Arlene's Flowers

# data[].attributes.subject
Video Supporting Plaintiff - State v. Arlene's Flowers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Gay Wedding Case, Washington Supreme Court Rules Against Florist

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a unanimous decision, the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that a florist broke the state's anti-discrimination law when refusing to provide services for a same-sex wedding. The florist, Barronelle Stutzman of Richland, Washington, was already fined by a lower court in 2013 for denying service to a gay couple.

# data[].attributes.headline
Video Supporting Defendant - Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

# data[].attributes.subject
Video Supporting Defendant - Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Church of Lukumi Babaloo Aye v. The City of Hialeah

# data[].attributes.headline
Jack C. Phillips - Masterpiece Cake Shop owner

# data[].attributes.subject
Jack C. Phillips - Masterpiece Cake Shop owner

# data[].attributes.body
This act, created in 1964, prohibits the discrimination of sex and race in employment procedures. Overtime, more protection has been added and the case now prohibits discrimination based on color, religion, national origin, and age as well as sex and race. (Title VII)

# data[].attributes.headline
Does the Civil Rights Act protect LGBT community?

# data[].attributes.subject
Does the Civil Rights Act protect LGBT community?

# data[].attributes.body
No, it does not. Nowhere in the clause does it explicitly mention protection against discrimination of sexual orientation or gender identity.

# data[].attributes.body
I believe the Supreme Court will rule in favor of Craig and Mullins, but not unanimously. There will be lots of discussion about this case. While both of the sides have good cases and claim violation of the amendments, Craig and Mullins have more going for them. Even past cases have ruled in favor of the gays being discriminated against despite it being for religious purposes.

# data[].attributes.body
The case State v. Arlene's Flowers supports my statement that the court will rule in favor of Craig and Mullins. In this case, a florist refused to sell flowers to a gay couple for their wedding because she was a devoted Christian and did not want to be a part of something that went against her religion. The court ruled in favor of the gay couple and the florist was fined for not selling them flowers.

# data[].attributes.headline
How will this decision affect religious rights in the states? 

# data[].attributes.subject
How will this decision affect religious rights in the states? 

# data[].attributes.body
If the Supreme Court rules against the cake shop owner, religious rights will have been constantly ruled against. They might as well change the circumstances of the first amendment because it will have been ruled against numerous times.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Suspect Class" & influence on Supreme Court cases

# data[].attributes.subject
"Suspect Class" & influence on Supreme Court cases

# data[].attributes.body
Suspect classification is a class of people who have a tendency of being discriminated against. If one uses this classification going into a Supreme Court case, the justices may be swayed to rule in favor of the suspect class person.

# data[].attributes.body
Also known as dual federalism, this is when power is divided between state and federal governments.

# data[].attributes.body
Also known as cooperative federalism, this is when the power is mixed within the national, state, and local governments.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why was the 14th Amendment added to the Constitution?

# data[].attributes.subject
Why was the 14th Amendment added to the Constitution?

# data[].attributes.body
After the American Civil War, slaves and African American citizens needed to be granted the same rights as the white people. Therefore, the 14th Amendment was ratified to promote the equality between them.

# data[].attributes.headline
How might the Supreme Court decision impact states' rights to prosecute those who violate discrimination laws?

# data[].attributes.subject
How might the Supreme Court decision impact states' rights to prosecute those who violate discrimination laws?

# data[].attributes.body
Their decision may allow the State's to give a harsher punishment to those who violate discrimination laws without having to go to the Supreme Court. There also may be more definite guidelines on the laws which allow for a better punishment.