Bakery's Refusal: Costly Consequences

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple from Colorado, went to the Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood to order a cake for their wedding reception. However, the owner, Jack Phillips, refused to create a custom cake for them, citing his Christian faith and his belief that marriage is solely between a man and a woman. This incident sparked a legal battle that went all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court, raising questions about the intersection of religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the baker

The Supreme Court's decision was narrow and did not set a precedent for future cases. It left open the question of whether businesses can discriminate against gay and lesbian customers based on rights protected by the First Amendment. The ruling applied only to the specific facts of the case.

The case began when a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, filed a complaint with the state civil-rights commission after Phillips told them that he did not design custom cakes for gay couples. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favour of the couple, as did the state Supreme Court. Phillips then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that he should not be forced to violate his relationship with God.

The Supreme Court's decision was not a broad endorsement of religious freedom or a rejection of anti-discrimination laws. Instead, it focused on the specific comments made by a member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which were deemed inappropriate and dismissive of Phillips' religious beliefs. The court affirmed that there remains protection for same-sex couples and gay rights, which states can enforce through anti-discrimination laws.

The baker's religious freedom was cited as a reason for refusal

The bakers' religious freedom was cited as a reason for refusal in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case involved Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, who refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on his religious beliefs.

Phillips, a Christian, declined the cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs. Despite the couple being allowed to purchase other baked goods in the store, they promptly left without discussing any details of the wedding cake. The following day, the mother of one of the grooms called Phillips, who again advised 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.

Following this incident, the couple, Charlie Craig and David 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 customers based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The Commission found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Phillips' favor, stating that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality and thus violated Phillips' rights to the free exercise of religion.

The Supreme Court's decision in this case was narrow and specific to the facts presented, leaving the broader question of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers unanswered. The Court emphasized the need for tolerance and respect for sincere religious beliefs while also affirming that gay Americans are entitled to strong defense rights and equal access to goods and services under anti-discrimination laws.

The couple filed a complaint, citing discrimination

In 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple from Colorado, planned to marry in Massachusetts and then return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At the time, same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado, though by 2014, the state had allowed same-sex marriages.

In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. However, the owner, Jack Phillips, a Christian, declined their request, stating that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs. Craig and Mullins promptly left the bakery without discussing any details of the cake design. The following day, Craig's mother called Phillips, who reiterated his refusal to create a wedding cake for the couple 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. This law prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against customers based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The couple's complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, which was decided in favour of the couple. The bakery was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sex marriages but also to make changes to its company policies and staff training regarding public accommodations discrimination.

Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed the decision to the state Court of Appeals, arguing that creating a custom cake was an act of creative expression protected by the First Amendment. They also refused to comply with the state's orders and instead opted to stop creating wedding cakes altogether, a decision that Phillips claimed cost him 40% of his business. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, along with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), represented Craig and Mullins during the appeals process.

The state Court of Appeals upheld the previous decision, finding that despite the custom nature of the cake, the act of creating it was part of the expected conduct of Phillips's business and not an expression of his religious beliefs or freedom of speech. The court distinguished this case from another case, in which three bakeries refused to create a cake with the message "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22". In that case, the bakeries had refused based on the offensive message, not the customer's creed, whereas Masterpiece Cakeshop's refusal was due to its opposition to same-sex marriage, which the court deemed "tantamount to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation".

Masterpiece Cakeshop then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court to review the case, arguing that requiring Phillips to create a cake that violated his religious beliefs about marriage infringed on his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the ACLU urged the Supreme Court to reject the appeal, fearing that a decision in favour of the bakery would create a loophole in civil rights laws based on religion.

In a 7-2 decision, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favour of Masterpiece Cakeshop, finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had exhibited hostility towards Phillips's religious views during its evaluation of the case. The Court's opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that while businesses generally must comply with anti-discrimination laws, the Commission's failure to remain religiously neutral in its adjudication violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. The Court's ruling, however, was narrow and did not address the broader question of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers in all circumstances.

The baker's lawyer praised the ruling, condemning government hostility towards people of faith

The lawyer for the baker, Jack Phillips, praised the ruling, stating that "government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society". The senior counsel with the Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian non-profit, Kristen Waggoner, also said that "the court was right to condemn" the state of Colorado for being "openly antagonistic toward Jack's religious beliefs about marriage".

The ruling was a narrow 7-2 decision, which applied only to the specific facts of the case. The court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown hostility towards Phillips' religious views, and that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating his rights to free exercise. The ruling did not address the broader question of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay customers.

The case involved Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, and a same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, who had requested a wedding cake to celebrate their marriage in 2012. Phillips declined their request, citing his Christian religious beliefs. The couple filed a complaint, and the case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in Phillips' favour.

The ruling was welcomed by advocates of religious freedom, but it also sparked concerns about the balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. The court emphasised the need for tolerance and respect for differing opinions, stating that disputes "must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market".

The ACLU, representing the couple, said the baker never discussed the design, diminishing his claim that his freedom of expression was at stake

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) centred on whether the owners of public accommodations can refuse services based on First Amendment claims of free speech and the free exercise of religion.

The case involved Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, who refused to design a custom wedding cake for same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins. Phillips, a Christian, declined their request, stating that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his religious beliefs.

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), representing the couple, argued that Phillips had discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation. The ACLU stated that Craig and Mullins never discussed any design details with Phillips, thus refuting his claim that his freedom of expression was at stake.

> "He simply turned us away just because of who we are instead of what we asked for," Craig said.

The ACLU further emphasised that the case reaffirmed the principle that businesses open to the public must be open to all, regardless of their protected characteristics.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of Phillips, stating that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown hostility towards his religious views. However, the ruling was narrow and specific to the facts of the case, leaving the broader question of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay and lesbian customers unanswered.

Frequently asked questions