Boston College Law School Professor Kent Greenfield was among those who attended oral arguments before the U.S. Supreme Court on Dec. 5 in the case of a Colorado baker who asserts his free speech rights protect his refusal to serve to a gay couple who asked him to bake their wedding cake.
Greenfield was one of 34 corporate law experts who warning that a ruling in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop would run counter to laws that govern corporations. The baker, Jack Phillips, is appealing a lower court鈥檚 ruling against him in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd vs State of Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
鈥淭he conflict in the courthouse last week was this about religious beliefs and were (the couple) asking him to say something he did not agree with, or was he discriminating against them because of who they were,鈥� Greenfield said ." Greenfield also discussed the case with Chris Citorik, host of Up Front on WBZ-AM on Dec. 10.
Greenfield, the Michael and Helen Lee Distinguished Scholar at 51茶馆 Law, said the courtroom atmosphere was 鈥渢ense.鈥�
鈥淚t鈥檚 a real case about real people and this has implications for maybe thousands of people around the country,鈥� he told NECN host Sue O鈥機onnell. 鈥淚t鈥檚 a real thing and it鈥檚 tense.鈥�
Greenfield and a colleague wrote the 鈥渇riend of the Court鈥� brief on behalf of corporate law professors from around the country. The brief argues in favor of the gay couple and against the business. Greenfield said the legal experts wrote the brief in order to 鈥渉ighlight issues in the case that otherwise might be missed.鈥�
Greenfield鈥檚 brief makes the case that Phillips and the cake shop 鈥渁re not one and the same,鈥澛犅爄n its coverage of the case.
聽鈥淭he case is important because it tests whether businesses will be able to claim religious exceptions to anti-discrimination laws,鈥� Greenfield said in an interview. 鈥淭he Court has held that non-profit groups such as the boy scouts can claim a first amendment right to be exempted from laws banning discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. This case is different because it concerns a business, open to the public. The business is a bakery, and the owner of the bakery says that he does not want to sell wedding cakes to gay couples, because he believes doing so would make him complicit in supporting same sex marriage, which he opposes.鈥�
Added Greenfield: 鈥淚n the case, it is the baker, Jack Phillips, who asserts the religious beliefs. But he is projecting his beliefs onto the business, which is organized as a corporation. And they are not one and the same. Shareholders seek out separation and receive immense benefits from separation, such as being protected from the liabilities of the company.鈥�
As the brief notes: "Shareholders depend on and desire this separation; they should not be able to assert unity with the corporation whenever it suits their ideological, political, or religious purposes, or exempts the company from regulatory obligations that bind other corporation.鈥�
鈥淚鈥檓 worried that if the baker wins, businesses will begin to assert religious beliefs that they don鈥檛 really have in order to get around laws they want to avoid for other reasons,鈥� Greenfield told O鈥機onnell on NECN.
He added: 鈥淥ne of the things that鈥檚 important about making sure that businesses don鈥檛 discriminate is that the world of commerce is where we interact. We don鈥檛 interact at churches, at synagogues or at the Thanksgiving table鈥� Commerce is where we come together and even if people are different from you, you have to interact with them.鈥�
-Ed Hayward / University Communications