Gay Wedding Cakes: Supreme Court's Ruling On Discrimination

In 2018, the US Supreme Court ruled in favour of a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The baker, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, argued that creating a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his First Amendment right to free speech and his freedom of religion. The court ruled 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown hostility towards Phillips' religious beliefs, but avoided a wider ruling on whether a business can refuse to serve gay people.

The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the baker, Jack Phillips, in 2018

The ruling was narrow and did not address the broader principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay people. The court stated that this "must await further elaboration". The decision focused on the handling of Phillips's case, leaving open the question of whether anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs in future cases.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote for the majority, said that the Commission's review of Phillips's case showed hostility" towards his religious beliefs. He wrote that "religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression". Kennedy emphasised that the ruling was narrow and that the court had not ruled on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.

The two dissenting justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor, said they would have upheld the finding of the Commission, which decided that Phillips violated the Colorado anti-discrimination law. Ginsburg wrote in her dissent that "Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it".

The ruling was based on the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression

The ruling in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was based on the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression. The case involved a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, called Masterpiece Cakeshop, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs. The owner, Jack Phillips, is a Christian and declined the cake request, stating that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings.

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 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 to change its policies and provide staff training. Masterpiece Cakeshop then appealed the decision to the state Court of Appeals and later took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, deciding that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality and thus violated Phillips's rights to free exercise of religion. The Court's decision was based on the First Amendment, which guarantees freedom of expression. The ruling stated that the Commission's review of Phillips's case exhibited hostility towards his religious views, which violated the state's obligation of religious neutrality under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court's ruling was narrow and did not address the broader principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay people. The Court acknowledged that while the baker's right to free exercise of religion may be limited by generally applicable laws, the state must remain neutral and respectful when considering claims for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws. The ruling also affirmed the protection of gay rights and stated that disputes in this area must be resolved with tolerance and without subjecting gay persons to indignities.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was found to have shown hostility towards the baker's religious beliefs

In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. The owner, Jack Phillips, declined their request, citing his Christian faith and stating that he did not create wedding cakes for gay couples. Craig and Mullins promptly left the bakery without discussing any further details. The following day, Craig's mother called Phillips, who reiterated his stance and added that 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 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. Following appeals within the state, the Commission's decision was affirmed, and the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown hostility towards Phillips' religious beliefs, violating his rights to free exercise. The Court reversed the Commission's decision, stating that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, noted that the Commission compared Phillips' religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust, which he deemed inappropriate. The Court, however, did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.

The ruling did not address the wider principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay people

The ruling in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not address the wider principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay people. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of the bakery owner, Jack Phillips, who refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple for religious reasons. The court stated that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown "hostility" towards Phillips' religious beliefs, and that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, thus violating Phillips' rights to free exercise.

The ruling focused narrowly on the handling of Phillips' case, leaving open the question of whether anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs in future cases. The court stated 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 decision was a narrow one, applying only to the specific facts of the case. The court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech. The court's opinion noted that the outcome of future cases "must await further elaboration in the courts".

The ruling did not address the question of whether a business can refuse to serve gay people, but rather focused on the specific circumstances of the case and the actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The court's decision left open the possibility for future rulings to address the wider principle of whether a business can refuse to serve gay customers.

The ruling focused on the handling of Phillips' case, leaving open the question of whether anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs

The ruling in the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was in favour of the cake shop owner, Jack Phillips, who had refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated Phillips' rights to free exercise of religion. The court, however, did not rule on the broader issue of whether anti-discrimination laws should supersede religious beliefs.

The case centred on Phillips' refusal to design a custom wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple from Colorado, in 2012. Phillips, a Christian, declined their request, citing his religious beliefs, but offered to sell them other baked goods. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, arguing that Phillips had violated the state's anti-discrimination law, which prohibits businesses from discriminating against customers based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

The Commission ruled in favour of the couple, ordering the cake shop to provide cakes to same-sex marriages and make changes to its policies and staff training. Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed the decision, arguing that creating a custom cake was an act of free speech and religious expression. The case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court's ruling focused on the handling of Phillips' case by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Court found that the Commission had shown hostility" towards Phillips' religious beliefs and had not remained religiously neutral in its evaluation. This violation of Phillips' rights to free exercise of religion was the basis for the Court's decision to reverse the Commission's ruling.

However, the Court did not address the broader question of whether anti-discrimination laws should take precedence over religious beliefs. The Court acknowledged the complexity of balancing these competing interests and emphasised the need for tolerance and respect in resolving such disputes. The Court's decision left open the possibility for future cases to further elaborate on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and religious freedom.

Frequently asked questions