Which States Mandate Bakeries To Make Gay Wedding Cakes?

The issue of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay customers on religious grounds has been the subject of several high-profile legal cases in the United States. While there is no federal mandate requiring bakeries to make gay wedding cakes, some states have passed laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in public accommodations, including bakeries. In 2018, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple, citing his First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and religion. However, the court did not address the broader principle of whether businesses can refuse to serve gay customers, leaving the issue to be decided in future cases. Since then, similar cases have arisen in states like California, where a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a lesbian couple, and Colorado, where a baker refused to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. These cases continue to spark debates over the balance between religious freedom and non-discrimination laws.

The Supreme Court's ruling in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

In the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court of the United States addressed whether owners of public accommodations can refuse services based on First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion. The case involved Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, based on the owner Jack Phillips's religious beliefs.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission evaluated the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, and found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple. Following appeals within the state, the Commission's decision against the bakery was affirmed, leading Masterpiece Cakeshop to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court, in a 7-2 decision, ruled that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips's rights to free exercise of religion. The Court reversed the Commission's decision, stating that the Commission exhibited hostility towards Phillips's religious views. However, the Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech due to the complexities of the case.

The Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission set a precedent for similar cases involving religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. The Court affirmed that while religious beliefs must be respected, businesses cannot deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under neutral and generally applicable public accommodation laws. This ruling balanced the rights of business owners to exercise their religious beliefs with the rights of individuals to be free from discrimination in accessing goods and services.

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission highlighted the complex interplay between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws in the United States. While the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, it also affirmed the importance of ensuring neutral and respectful consideration of claims for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. The Court's decision emphasized the need for tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion in a diverse society.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission's decision

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission evaluated the case under the state's anti-discrimination 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, including that the bakery must provide cakes to same-sex marriages and change its company policies to include "comprehensive staff training" regarding public accommodations discrimination. The bakery appealed the decision, arguing that the anti-discrimination law could be used to selectively discriminate against religion.

The case made its way through the state courts, with the Colorado Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of Colorado upholding the Commission's decision. The bakery then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in a 7-2 decision that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips's right to the free exercise of religion. The Court reversed the Commission's decision, finding that the Commission exhibited hostility towards Phillips's religious views and failed to remain neutral in its evaluation.

The Supreme Court's ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission set a precedent for similar cases involving the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom. The Court affirmed that states can enforce anti-discrimination laws to protect same-sex couples and gay rights, while also recognizing the importance of religious neutrality in evaluating claims for religious exemptions from these laws. The decision highlighted the complex balance between ensuring equal access to goods and services under anti-discrimination laws and protecting the free exercise of religion.

The impact of the ruling on anti-discrimination laws

The ruling in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission had a significant impact on anti-discrimination laws, particularly regarding the intersection of religious freedom and LGBTQ+ rights. While the ruling did not create a blanket exemption for businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ+ individuals, it recognised the complexity of balancing religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws.

The ruling emphasised the need for religious neutrality in the evaluation of claims for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. This means that state actors, such as the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, must ensure that religious claims are assessed without bias or hostility towards the claimant's religious beliefs. The Court found that the Commission had exhibited religious hostility towards Masterpiece Cakeshop's owner, Jack Phillips, and that this violated the state's obligation of religious neutrality under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

The Court's decision did not provide a clear-cut answer to the broader issue of the clash between anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom. Instead, it affirmed the need for tolerance and respect for both sides of the debate. On the one hand, the Court acknowledged the importance of protecting religious freedom and ensuring that individuals are not compelled to express messages that violate their core beliefs. On the other hand, the Court also recognised the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to be free from discrimination and "indignities" when accessing goods and services in the open market.

The right to free speech and freedom of religion

The bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop, argued that the act of making a custom cake was a form of expression and thus protected by the First Amendment. They claimed that being forced to make a cake for a gay wedding would violate their religious beliefs and that they should be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, on the other hand, evaluated the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in a 7-2 decision that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating the bakery owner Jack Phillips's rights to the free exercise of religion. The Court, however, did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech due to the complexities of the issue. This ruling set a precedent for similar cases involving anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom, such as the Arlene's Flowers lawsuit in Washington and the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, which dealt with a Christian web designer who sought to block Colorado's anti-discrimination law as a violation of her First Amendment rights.

The debate over the right to free speech and freedom of religion in the context of gay wedding cakes continues to play out in courts across the United States, with varying rulings that reflect the complexity of the issue. While some courts have sided with businesses claiming religious objections, others have upheld anti-discrimination laws as a way to protect the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals. The outcome of these cases has significant implications for both religious freedom and the fight for LGBTQ+ equality.

The implications for LGBTQ+ rights

Denying LGBTQ+ couples equal access to goods and services reinforces a history of marginalization and stigmatization, sending a message that their identities are not worthy of equal treatment and respect. This can have significant psychological and social consequences, contributing to mental health issues, social isolation, and a sense of otherness within the LGBTQ+ community.

On the other hand, the issue of religious freedom and freedom of expression comes into play when considering the implications for LGBTQ+ rights. In the United States, the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. In the context of the bakery refusals, business owners have argued that being forced to create a custom cake for a gay wedding would violate their sincerely held religious beliefs and their freedom of expression.

The conflict between LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom highlights the delicate balance between protecting the rights of marginalized communities and upholding the freedom of individuals to practice their religion and express their beliefs. This balance is further complicated by the question of where to draw the line regarding religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. While the Supreme Court has affirmed that anti-discrimination laws are crucial in preventing discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals, it has also acknowledged the complexity of cases involving religious objections.

In the Masterpiece Cakeshop case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the bakery owner, Jack Phillips, finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission exhibited religious hostility and violated his rights to free exercise of religion. However, the Court did not create a broad exemption to anti-discrimination laws, leaving the broader intersection of these laws with religious freedom and freedom of speech unresolved. This narrow ruling suggests that each case will be evaluated on its own merits, considering both the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and the religious freedom rights of business owners.

Frequently asked questions