“I’ll do almost anything for cake— even trample little children!” said Gayle King, a CBS news anchor. While this was an attempt at lighthearted humor by King, through the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commision, it is evident that some groups of people do have to go to unprecedented lengths in order to obtain a cake.

Late last year, the Supreme Court heard this case to decide, according to the Supreme Court of the United States blog, “Whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment.” It is vital that the Supreme Court upholds the rulings of the lower courts—and determines that the law in question does not violate the First Amendment—for the collective wellbeing of the nation.

In 2012, David Mullins and Charlie Craig, a same-sex couple, went to Masterpiece Cakeshop, located in Lakewood, Colorado, hoping to find a wedding cake for their upcoming reception. When the owner, Jack Phillips, found out the cake was intended for Mullins and Craig, he refused to sell them the cake because of their sexual orientation.

Mortified, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division alleging that Phillips’s actions broke the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act. After an investigation and hearings, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission—which oversees inquiries concerning unlawful discriminatory conduct and reviews the Civil Rights Division’s appeals—decided that the bakery violated the law by illegally discriminating against the couple through refusal of service based on sexual orientation.

On August 13, 2015, the Colorado Court of Appeals confirmed the Civil Rights Commission’s decision and also determined that the implementation of this law did not transgress upon Masterpiece Cakeshop’s constitutional right to freedom of speech and exercise of religion, which was the bakery’s principal argument. After the Colorado Supreme Court refused, the Supreme Court of the United States granted review on June 26, 2017, and arguments were heard on December 5, 2017.

The defense focused their argument on the First Amendment, specifically the right to freedom of speech. Although Phillips considers himself a “cake artist” and thus believes the cakes he designs and sells are art, he is running a business. Masterpiece Cakeshop’s products do not cross the line between merchandise and art. Masterpiece Cakeshop is a bakery, a business, and it provides the service of making cakes. Its wedding cakes must be considered a commodity rather than art, so Phillips’s actions are equivalent to a fashion designer refusing to engage a homosexual clientele.

All of the lower courts in Colorado were correct to state that Phillips was in violation of the Anti-Discrimination Act, which “prohibits discrimination based on a person’s sexual orientation,” the latter defined as “a person’s orientation toward heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality, or transgender status,” in any public accommodation, which is established as “any place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations to the public.”

Phillips cites the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech in his defense, but documents have shown that Phillips’s desire for protection of religious freedom is the true motivator. In an opinion piece he wrote for USA Today, Phillips stated that making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple “contradicts [his] deepest religious convictions” and that “this wasn’t just a business decision. More than anything else, it was a reflection of [his] commitment to [his] faith. [Phillips’s] religious convictions on this are grounded in the biblical teaching that God designed marriage as the union of one man and one woman.” Phillips was driven by his desire to follow his religion over the laws of his state.

While the First Amendment recognizes religious freedom as a fundamental right in the United States, religious beliefs cannot make laws. As Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an opinion in 1990, “a system in which each conscience is a law unto itself or in which judges weigh the social importance of all laws against the centrality of all religious beliefs” is unsustainable.

We the people of the United States should be allowed to freely practice whichever religion we so desire, but establishing common laws based on religions is illogical. Research conducted by the Pew Research Center shows that Americans follow many different religions. While the most popular overarching religion is Christianity, each of its various different sects considers itself separate. If there is this much division within the beliefs and practices of one religion, we cannot ever expect laws established upon religious principles to work for the entire population of the United States.

This case serves as a precedent. For example, the Supreme Court has only heard cases regarding sexual orientation relatively recently. The outcome of this case has the power to determine treatment of members of the LGBTQ+ community across the nation. On an even larger scale, the outcome of this case will define whether or not businesses around the country can justify their right to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

It is crucial that the Justices of the Supreme Court place the fundamental human rights of people all around the country above their partisanship. Although religious freedom is an important principle to maintain, it cannot be used to discriminate against others and violate their civil rights.

The Declaration of Independence states that “all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men.” The right to freedom from discrimination is vital to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of every person in this nation. For the sake of the country, it is important that we maintain these liberties. As ACLU lawyer Louise Melling said, “This is not a case about cake. It is a case about a very radical proposition.”