Facts of the Case
In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, CO, and requested that its owner, Jack C. Phillips, design and create a cake for their wedding. Phillips declined to do so on the grounds that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. Phillips believes that decorating cakes is a form of art through which he can honor God and that it would displease God to create cakes for same-sex marriages.
Craig and Mullins filed charges of discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014. After the Division issued a notice of determination finding probable cause, Craig and Mullins filed a formal complaint with the Office of Administrative Courts alleging that Masterpiece discriminated against them in a place of public accommodation in violation of CADA.
The Administrative Law Judge issued a written order finding in favor of Craig and Mullins, which was affirmed by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. On appeal, the Colorado Court of Appeals subsequently affirmed the Commission's ruling.
Questions
Does the application of Colorado's public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and make a cake that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about same-sex marriage violate the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment?
Conclusions
-
The Court reversed in a 7-2 decision, holding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's conduct in evaluating a cake shop owner's reasons for declining to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the Free Exercise Clause.
The Court explained that while gay persons and same-sex couples are afforded civil rights protections under the laws and the Constitution, religious and philosophical objections to same-sex marriage are protected views and can also be protected forms of expression. The Colorado law at issue in this case, which prohibited discrimination against gay people in purchasing products and services, had to be applied in a neutral manner with regard to religion. The majority acknowledged that from Phillips' perspective, creating cakes was a form of artistic expression and a component of his sincere religious beliefs.
The Court also explained that in 2012, the year that Phillips refused his services to Craig and Mullins, the law in Colorado and across the country with regard to same sex marriage was much more unsettled than it became after United States v. Windsor, 570 US 744 (2013) and Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 US ___ (2015). At the time, the State Civil Rights Division had also concluded in at least three other cases that bakers had acted lawfully in declining to make cakes that included messages they disagreed with, specifically messages demeaning gay persons. Thus it was not unreasonable for Phillips to believe that he was acting lawfully at the time, and his claims before the Commission were entitled to neutral treatment.
However, the Court stated that Phillips did not receive this neutral treatment, with members of the Commission showing clear and impermissible hostility toward his religious beliefs. The Court explained that commissioners' comments disparaging Phillips' beliefs and characterizing them as rhetorical were inappropriate, though these comments were not mentioned or disavowed in subsequent legal proceedings. The Court concluded that these comments cast doubt on the fairness of the Commission's consideration of Phillips' claims. The Court also pointed out that disparities between Phillips' case and those of other bakers with objections to making cakes with anti-gay messages, and who were victorious before the Commission, further reflected hostility toward the religious basis for Phillips' position.
The Court concluded that the Commission's actions violated the State's duty under the First Amendment not to use hostility toward religion or a religious viewpoint as a basis for laws or regulations. Under the facts of this case, the Court determined that Phillips' religious justification for his refusal to serve Craig and Mullins was not afforded the neutral treatment mandated by the Free Exercise Clause.
Justice Ginsburg authored a dissenting opinion, in which she was joined by Justice Sotomayor, stating that neither the Commission's comments regarding Phillips' religious views nor its alleged disparate treatment of bakers objecting to making cakes with anti-gay messages justified ruling in favor of Phillips.
Justice Kagan filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Breyer, in which she agreed with the majority that the Commission had not given neutral treatment to Phillips' religious views, but declined to assign any significance to the Commission's treatment of bakers who refused to create cakes with anti-gay messages because she believed that this did not violate the Colorado law at issue in Phillips' case.
Justice Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion, joined by Justice Alito, in which he argued that the cases of Phillips and the bakers who objected to using anti-gay messages in their baking were quite similar, and the Commission acted inappropriately in treating them differently.
Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, and was joined by Justice Gorsuch. Thomas argued that an order requiring Phillips to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple would violate his First Amendment rights.
303 Creative, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the Fate of Free Exercise for Wedding Vendors
Over the past decade, the tension between First Amendment rights and public accommodations laws has...
303 Creative, Masterpiece Cakeshop, and the Fate of Free Exercise for Wedding Vendors
Over the past decade, the tension between First Amendment rights and public accommodations laws has...
Religious Liberty Pragmatism
Federalist Society Review, Volume 24
A review of Thomas C. Berg, Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age (Eerdmans 2023) In...
Religious Liberty Pragmatism
Federalist Society Review, Volume 24
A review of Thomas C. Berg, Religious Liberty in a Polarized Age (Eerdmans 2023) In...
With an Originalist Understanding of the First Amendment, the 303 Creative Case Would Have Been Much Easier
On the last day of its recent term, the Supreme Court decided 303 Creative v....
A Cord of Three Strands: How Kennedy v. Bremerton School District Changed Free Exercise, Establishment, and Free Speech Clause Doctrine
Federalist Society Review, Volume 24
In 2015, Bremerton High School football coach Joseph Kennedy lost his job for kneeling at...
Measuring and Evaluating Public Responses to Religious Rights Rulings
Federalist Society Review, Volume 23
The story of Jack Phillips and his cake shop—Masterpiece Cakeshop—is by now familiar. Jack Phillips...
Measuring and Evaluating Public Responses to Religious Rights Rulings
Federalist Society Review, Volume 23
The story of Jack Phillips and his cake shop—Masterpiece Cakeshop—is by now familiar. Jack Phillips...
Is Colorado’s Compelling Interest in Eliminating Discrimination Sufficient to Overcome a Designer’s First Amendment Claims?
In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, one of the marquee cases of the current Supreme...
A Case that Could Bring Great Clarity to Religious Jurisprudence
303 Creative v. Elenis
Free Exercise jurisprudence is a complete mess right now. Since Employment Division v. Smith, lower...
We Are Free for a Reason
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
A review of Free to Believe: The Battle Over Religious Liberty in America, by Luke...
Litigation Update: Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop
Jack Phillips, of Masterpiece Cakeshop fame, is back in court for the third time since the Supreme...
How the Founders’ Natural Law Theory Illuminates the Original Meaning of Free Exercise
Federalist Society Review, Volume 22
In Fulton v. City of Philadelphia, the Supreme Court will consider whether Philadelphia’s 2018 policy...
The FCC Should Not Engage in Section 230 Rulemaking
That's Debatable is a new blog initiative bringing together legal and policy experts with differing perspectives...
State Court Docket Watch: Brush & Nib Studio v. City of Phoenix
State Court Docket Watch: 2020 Edition
For the last decade, courts and commentators have penned many pages about anti-discrimination norms and...
Klein Case Goes Back to Oregon Court
Today, the Oregon Court of Appeals is once again hearing oral argument in Melissa Klein...
Litigation Update: Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries
Melissa and Aaron Klein, of the Sweet Cakes by Melissa bakery in Oregon, were ordered...
Southern Poverty Law Center Controversy
Civil Rights Practice Group Teleforum
The Southern Poverty Law Center (501(c)(3)) and SPLC Action Fund (reportedly processing 501(c)(4) application) potentially...
American Justice 2018: Book Review
“The Shifting Supreme Court” is the latest from the University of Pennsylvania’s “American Justice” series,...
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
The Federalist Society Review is the legal journal produced by the Federalist Society’s Practice Groups....
Say What You Will?: Government Compelled Speech
2018 National Lawyers Convention
When can the government require you to speak, or to host speech on your property,...
Say What You Will?: Government Compelled Speech
2018 National Lawyers Convention
When can the government require you to speak, or to host speech on your property,...
Masterpiece Cakeshop and Its Implications
2018 National Lawyers Convention
The Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unexpectedly based...
Masterpiece Cakeshop and Its Implications
2018 National Lawyers Convention
The Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was unexpectedly based...
NLC 2018 Digital Survival Guide
This "Survival Guide" is your one-stop-shop for all things digital at the National Lawyers Convention. Enjoy!...
Compelled Speech in Masterpiece Cakeshop: What the Supreme Court’s June 2018 Decisions Tell Us About the Unresolved Questions
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the unresolved compelled-speech questions in Masterpiece Cakeshop v....
Compelled Speech in Masterpiece Cakeshop: What the Supreme Court’s June 2018 Decisions Tell Us About the Unresolved Questions
Federalist Society Review, Volume 19
Note from the Editor: This article discusses the unresolved compelled-speech questions in Masterpiece Cakeshop v....
Civil Rights Commissions: Enforcers of Social Justice
Whether called Human Rights, Human Relations, or Civil Rights Commissions, many cities and counties and...
Masterpiece Cakeshop: The Decision [SCOTUSbrief]
Short video featuring Ilya Shapiro
Masterpiece Cakeshop was one of the most highly anticipated Supreme Court cases of 2018. What...
Masterpiece Cakeshop: The Decision [SCOTUSbrief]
Short video featuring Ilya Shapiro
Masterpiece Cakeshop was one of the most highly anticipated Supreme Court cases of 2018. What...
Post-Masterpiece Cakeshop SCOTUS: Religious Liberty Cases to Watch
Cases are percolating up to the Supreme Court that will test the meaning of Masterpiece...
Courthouse Steps: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC Decided
Religious Liberties Practice Group Teleforum
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC, one of the most highly publicized of the term, was decided 7-2...
Bullet-Point Summary of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n.
SCOTUS decided Masterpiece Cakeshop this morning. The opinion may be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (1) The vote...
Bullet-Point Summary of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n.
SCOTUS decided Masterpiece Cakeshop this morning. The opinion may be found here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf (1) The vote...
Faulty Union “Math” Doesn’t Add Up to a Public-Sector Right to Strike
An April 5, 2018, post on Onlabor.org [https://onlabor.org/will-masterpiece-cakeshop-and-janus-create-a-first-amendment-right-to-strike-for-teachers/] argues that, if the U.S. Supreme Court rules for...
The Issue of Occupational Speech in Masterpiece & NILF
It is not often that the Supreme Court takes two cases addressing an ever more...
The Issue of Occupational Speech in Masterpiece & NILF
It is not often that the Supreme Court takes two cases addressing an ever more...
Courthouse Steps: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado CRC
Religious Liberties Practice Group Teleforum
On December 5th, The Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado...
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [SCOTUSbrief]
Short video featuring Mark Movsesian
Can Colorado's public accommodations law compel a baker to serve a customer in a way...
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission [SCOTUSbrief]
Short video featuring Mark Movsesian
Can Colorado's public accommodations law compel a baker to serve a customer in a way...
Supreme Court October 2017 Term Preview
Practice Groups Podcast
On Friday, October 6, The Federalist Society hosted a special 90-minute Teleforum to preview the significant...
Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc. and Jack C. Phillips v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Charlie Craig, and David Mullins
On April 25, 2016, the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the appeal of a...
Masterpiece Cakeshop, the First Amendment and Non-Discrimination Law
New Hampshire Student Chapter
Zoom Webinar -- University of New Hampshire2 White Street
Concord, NH 03301
2018 National Lawyers Convention
Good Government through Agency Accountability and Regulatory Transparency
The Mayflower Hotel1127 Connecticut Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20036
The Future of Masterpiece Cakeshop
Tulsa Student Chapter
TU College of Law - Turpen / Price Courtroom3120 E 4th Pl
Tulsa, OK 74104