Phoenix Lgbt Wedding Cake Suit: A Timeline Of Events

The Phoenix LGBT Wedding Cake Suit was filed in 2017 by a Phoenix couple, Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, who own a custom calligraphy and invitation business. The couple filed a lawsuit in Arizona's Maricopa County Superior Court challenging the state's anti-discrimination law, which protected LGBT couples from discrimination in public accommodations. Duka and Koski wished to use their religious beliefs to refuse services to same-sex couples planning to marry. The suit sparked a nationwide conversation on the intersection of religious beliefs and LGBT rights and ultimately led to a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the couple, finding that the Phoenix anti-discrimination ordinance violated the First Amendment's free exercise clause by failing to act in a neutral manner towards religion.

The Phoenix LGBT Wedding Cake Suit

On July 7, 2017, a Phoenix couple, Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, filed a lawsuit in Arizona's Maricopa County Superior Court challenging the state's anti-discrimination law. Duka and Koski, who own a custom calligraphy and invitation business, Brush & Nib Studio, wished to use their religious beliefs to refuse services to same-sex couples planning to marry. The suit, referred to as the Phoenix LGBT Wedding Cake Suit, challenged the state's anti-discrimination law, which protected LGBT couples from discrimination in public accommodations.

The case sparked a nationwide conversation on the intersection of religious beliefs and LGBT rights, and ultimately sparked a U.S. Supreme Court ruling. The Supreme Court ruled in favour of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple in 2018. The court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed anti-religious bias when it ruled against the baker for refusing to make the cake. However, the decision did not address the larger issue of whether a business can invoke religious objections to refuse service to gay and lesbian people.

In the Arizona case, the state Court of Appeals sided with the city, saying the ordinance is constitutional and does not violate freedom of religion or speech. Duka and Koski then appealed the decision to the Arizona Supreme Court. In 2025, the Arizona Supreme Court ruled in favour of Duka and Koski, stating that the city of Phoenix could not force them to make same-sex wedding invitations. However, the ruling was limited to only the creation of custom wedding invitations and was not a blanket exemption from the ordinance for all their business operations.

The US Supreme Court ruling

On June 4, 2018, the US Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, in 2012. The 7-2 decision was narrow and did not address the larger issues of whether a business can refuse service to gay couples on religious grounds or whether baking qualifies as a form of expression protected by the First Amendment.

The case, known as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, centred on Phillips' refusal to design a wedding cake for Craig and Mullins because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The couple filed a charge against Phillips with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, arguing that he had violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Supreme Court's ruling hinged on how the commission treated Phillips and his religious beliefs. In the majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that "the Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection." Kennedy took issue with statements made by one of the commissioners, which compared Phillips' views to those held by people who condoned slavery and the Holocaust.

Kennedy's opinion did not address the root issues of the case, and he concluded that "the outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these 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 narrow ruling left the broader question of whether certain businesses can claim religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws unresolved. While the decision was specific to the treatment of Phillips by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, it did prompt discussions about the balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ individuals.

The US Supreme Court's ruling in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case was not the final word on the issue, and similar cases have continued to arise across the country, with legal experts predicting that another case will eventually reach the Supreme Court.

The Arizona Supreme Court's ruling

In June 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The ruling was based on the argument that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed anti-religious bias when ruling against the baker, Jack Phillips, who refused to make the cake at his Masterpiece Cakeshop. The decision, however, did not address the broader issue of whether a business can refuse service to gay and lesbian people on religious grounds.

In the Arizona case, the state Court of Appeals sided with the city of Phoenix, upholding an anti-discrimination law that makes it illegal for businesses to refuse service to same-sex couples because of religion. The lawsuit was first brought in 2016 by Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio, a wedding invitation business. The Arizona Court of Appeals found that the Phoenix ordinance is constitutional and does not violate freedom of religion or speech. The court stated that if Duka and Koski "want to operate their for-profit business as a public accommodation, they cannot discriminate against potential patrons based on sexual orientation."

The three-judge panel also noted that a stationery store that includes the customized design of wedding event merchandise is not "entitled to First Amendment free speech protections." They characterized the case as "one of a blanket refusal of service to the LGBTQ community."

The Arizona Court of Appeals decision referenced the outcome of the Colorado case, stating that there was no evidence that Phoenix's ordinance or its interpretation was anything but neutral and respectful of the business owners' religious beliefs.

While the Arizona Court of Appeals upheld Phoenix's anti-discrimination ordinance, the U.S. Supreme Court's narrow ruling in the Colorado case left the larger question of religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws unresolved. This issue is likely to be revisited by the Supreme Court in the future, as similar cases continue to arise across the country.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission's ruling

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission evaluated the case under 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 to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, change its company policies, provide staff training, and submit quarterly reports for two years. The bakery appealed the decision, but the state Court of Appeals upheld the ruling, stating that the act of making the cake was part of the expected conduct of the bakery's business and not an expression of free speech or religion.

The case eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in favour of the bakery in a 7-2 decision. The Court found that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips's rights to the free exercise of religion. The Court's ruling, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that the Commission's treatment of Phillips exhibited hostility towards his religious views, comparing his beliefs to those held by people who condoned slavery and the Holocaust. However, the Court did not rule on the broader issue of the intersection between anti-discrimination laws, free speech, and the free exercise of religion. Instead, the Court emphasised the need for tolerance and respect for differing opinions and affirmed that gay Americans are entitled to strong defence rights.

The impact on anti-discrimination laws

The Phoenix LGBT Wedding Cake Suit, filed in 2017, challenged Arizona's anti-discrimination law, which protects LGBT couples from discrimination in public accommodations. The case sparked a nationwide conversation on the intersection of religious beliefs and LGBT rights.

In the suit, Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of a custom calligraphy and invitation business, argued that their religious beliefs allowed them to refuse services to same-sex couples planning to marry. This lawsuit was filed in response to Phoenix's anti-discrimination ordinance, which was expanded in 2013 to include protections against discrimination and bias based on sexual orientation and gender identity. The ordinance bans discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations, with penalties for non-compliance.

The impact of this case on anti-discrimination laws was highly anticipated, with legal experts predicting that the ruling could significantly influence discrimination protections for LGBT individuals across the nation. However, the U.S. Supreme Court's narrow 7-2 decision in favor of the baker in the Masterpiece Cakeshop case did not address the broader issues of discrimination and religious freedom. The court ruled that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had shown hostility towards the baker's sincere religious beliefs, but it did not set a precedent for other cases.

The Phoenix case, filed by Duka and Koski, was upheld by the Arizona Court of Appeals, which sided with the city. The court ruled that the ordinance was constitutional and did not violate freedom of religion or speech. The judges stated that the case was about a blanket refusal of service to the LGBTQ community and that the business owners could not discriminate if they wanted to operate as a public accommodation.

While the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision did not directly impact other anti-discrimination laws, it sparked ongoing discussions about the balance between religious freedom and LGBT rights. The decision highlighted the need for clear and consistent legal rules regarding religious expression and the limits of anti-discrimination protections. The case also brought attention to the role of organizations like the Alliance Defending Freedom, which has represented individuals and businesses in their challenges to anti-discrimination laws.

Frequently asked questions