Facts of the Case

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a custom wedding cake for their same-sex marriage celebration. The shop’s owner, Jack Phillips, declined their request, citing his religious beliefs that opposed same-sex marriage. Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). The Commission ruled against Phillips, leading him to appeal the decision, arguing that being forced to create a cake for a same-sex wedding violated his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion.

Constitutional Question

Does the application of Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel a cake maker to design and bake a cake for a same-sex wedding violate the First Amendment’s protections of free speech and free exercise of religion?

Arguments

For Masterpiece Cakeshop (Jack Phillips):

• Creating a custom wedding cake is an expressive act that conveys a message, and compelling Phillips to create a cake for a same-sex wedding forces him to endorse a message that violates his religious beliefs.
• The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s ruling infringes on Phillips’ First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion by compelling him to engage in conduct that contradicts his religious convictions.
• The government should not compel individuals to create expressive content that goes against their deeply held beliefs.

For the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (the respondents):

• The refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple constitutes discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is prohibited by Colorado’s public accommodations law.
• The law is neutral and generally applicable, designed to ensure that businesses open to the public serve all customers equally, regardless of sexual orientation.
• Allowing businesses to refuse service based on religious beliefs would undermine anti-discrimination laws and could lead to widespread discrimination against various protected classes.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop. However, the ruling was narrowly focused and did not establish a broad precedent on the conflict between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom. The decision did say that Phillips was unjustly punished by Colorado’s discrimination law; but it didn’t go so far as to say the law itself violated freedom of religion protections. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had demonstrated hostility toward Phillips’ religious beliefs during its proceedings, thus violating his right to free exercise of religion. The Court criticized the Commission for not being neutral in its treatment of Phillips’ religious objections and for showing bias against his religious views.

The decision emphasized that the ruling was based on the specific facts of this particular case, particularly the Commission’s failure to treat Phillips’ religious beliefs with respect and neutrality, rather than on a broader determination of whether businesses could refuse service based on religious objections. The court left the anti-discrimination law in place, and said that states do have a right to have and enforce laws that protect individuals from discrimination.

Significance

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is significant because it highlighted the ongoing tension between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom. While the ruling did not establish a definitive answer to whether businesses can refuse service based on religious beliefs, it underscored the importance of government neutrality in matters involving religion. The case left unresolved the broader legal questions regarding the balance between religious liberty and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals, and it has prompted further legal challenges and debates on the issue. The decision also set the stage for future cases that would directly target the question of whether or not private businesses open to the general public had the constitutional right to decline clients on a First Amendment basis.