Unveiling Gay Wedding Cakes: Signs And Symbols

The question of whether a baker can refuse to make a wedding cake for a gay couple has been the subject of several high-profile court cases in recent years, most notably the 2018 US Supreme Court case *Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission*. In this case, the court ruled in favour of the baker, finding that his refusal to make the cake was not an act of discrimination but an expression of his sincerely held religious beliefs. However, the broader issue of whether businesses can refuse service to customers on the basis of their sexual orientation has sparked intense debate and remains a highly controversial topic.

The gay wedding cake case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, was argued in the Supreme Court

The gay wedding cake case, or Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, was argued in the Supreme Court on December 5, 2017. The case centred around a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in July 2012 to order a cake for their upcoming wedding reception. The bakery owner, Jack Phillips, informed them that the bakery did not sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples, citing his Christian faith and religious beliefs.

Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division, contending that the bakery had violated Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that the bakery had illegally discriminated against the couple based on their sexual orientation, and the Colorado Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed this decision. The case was then taken to the U.S. Supreme Court.

Masterpiece Cakeshop argued that it had a religious right to discriminate and a free speech right not to serve customers equally. They claimed that baking a cake for a same-sex wedding violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and expression. On the other hand, Craig and Mullins asserted that they were treated differently based on their sexual orientation and that the case was about their right to receive equal service.

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, reversing the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled that the Commission did not remain religiously neutral, thus violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to the free exercise of his religion. The Court emphasised that the Commission exhibited hostility towards Phillips's religious views and compared them to the defence of slavery or the Holocaust.

While the Supreme Court affirmed gay rights, it did not rule broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and the free exercise of religion. Instead, it addressed both sides, stating that while state actors must ensure neutral consideration of religious exemptions, future disputes must be resolved with tolerance and without subjecting gay persons to indignities.

The case involved a bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing religious beliefs

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) involved a bakery that refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing religious beliefs. The bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, was owned by Jack Phillips, a Christian whose faith guided everything in his life, including his refusal to bake a cake for the same-sex wedding of Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins.

In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop to order a wedding cake for their return celebration to Colorado after their planned marriage in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legal. Phillips declined their request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples due to his Christian religious beliefs, although he said they could purchase other baked goods in the store. Craig and Mullins left the shop without discussing any details of the cake design. The following day, Craig's mother called Phillips, who reiterated that he did not make wedding cakes for gay couples because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time.

Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The Commission found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery, including that it provide cakes to same-sex marriages and change its company policies. Following appeals within the state, the Commission's decision against the bakery was affirmed, and the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bakery, with a 7-2 decision stating that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, thus violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to free exercise. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the specific circumstances of the case. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that the Commission's review of Phillips's case exhibited hostility towards his religious views and compared his beliefs to the defense of slavery or the Holocaust. The Court affirmed that there remains protection of same-sex couples and gay rights, which states can enforce through anti-discrimination laws.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favour, stating that the bakery had discriminated against them based on sexual orientation

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins attempted to buy a wedding cake at Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. The owner, an evangelical Christian named Jack Phillips, refused to sell them one. The couple then filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favour, stating that the bakery had discriminated against them based on sexual orientation. The Commission described the use of religious beliefs as a reason for what they called discrimination as "one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric".

Phillips argued that his refusal had nothing to do with hate and that he serves everybody who comes into his store. He also claimed that his Christian faith guides everything in his life, including his refusal to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because it would have violated his religious beliefs. He further stated that he didn't see his decision as an act of discrimination but as an act of following his faith.

The couple's complaint was encouraged by the public response they received after posting about their experience on Facebook. The post went viral, and they received an outpouring of support from people not just in Colorado, but from around the world.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission's decision was later upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals.

The bakery petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that their First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and expression were violated

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) addressed whether owners of public accommodations can refuse services based on First Amendment claims of free speech and the free exercise of religion. The bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, based on the owner Jack Phillips's religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in the couple's favour, stating that the bakery had discriminated against them. The bakery appealed the decision, arguing that their First Amendment rights to freedom of religion and expression were violated. They took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which also ruled in their favour.

The bakery's owner, Jack Phillips, is a Christian and refused to bake a cake for the couple's wedding because it would have violated his religious beliefs. He stated that marriage is between a man and a woman and that he would not create a cake for a same-sex wedding. Phillips argued that his refusal was not an act of discrimination but an act of following his faith. He also claimed that a wedding cake is an "iconic symbol" of a wedding and that he could not be forced to create a cake that went against his beliefs.

The bakery petitioned the Supreme Court, arguing that their First Amendment rights were violated. They contended that the Colorado public accommodations law, which requires businesses to serve customers equally regardless of characteristics such as sexual orientation, violated their freedom of speech and religion. The bakery was supported by the Trump administration, which agreed that Colorado could not compel the bakery to express speech that went against their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the bakery, stating that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality and violated Phillips's rights to the free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court's decision was met with mixed reactions. While religious rights activists celebrated the ruling, LGBTQ groups expressed concern that it could lead to increased discrimination under the guise of religious exemptions. The Court's opinion emphasised the need for religious neutrality in evaluating claims for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. The Court also affirmed the protection of gay rights and stated that discrimination against LGBT individuals in public accommodations is not protected by the First Amendment.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the bakery, stating that the bakery had a right to refuse service based on its religious beliefs

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission made it all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the bakery, stating that the bakery had a right to refuse service based on its religious beliefs. The case began in 2012 when Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, and asked for a wedding cake. The owner, Jack Phillips, refused to sell them one, citing his Christian faith, which guided everything in his life, including his refusal to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple because it would have violated his religious beliefs.

Phillips argued that his refusal had nothing to do with hate and that he served everybody who came into his store. He also offered to sell Craig and Mullins other items, such as cookies and birthday cakes. He claimed that his refusal to bake a wedding cake was not discrimination based on sexual orientation but on a particular message: endorsement of same-sex marriage. He was simply unwilling to use his artistic talents in the service of a message that he deemed immoral.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found Phillips liable for sexual-orientation discrimination, which is prohibited by the state's public accommodations law. The lower courts in the case decided that Masterpiece Cakeshop had violated the state civil rights act. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this ruling, stating that Phillips was the one who was the subject of bias, against his religious beliefs. The court affirmed gay rights but did not agree that Craig and Mullins had been discriminated against based on sexual orientation.

The Supreme Court's decision was met with mixed reactions. While many religious rights activists celebrated the ruling, LGBTQ groups expressed concern that it could open the floodgates for bigotry hiding behind religious exemptions. The couple at the centre of the case, Craig and Mullins, were blindsided by the decision and felt that the bakery had won the battle but lost the war. They emphasised that the struggle for equal rights was far from over.

Frequently asked questions