The Wedding Cake Court Case: A Battle For Equality

The wedding cake court case, or Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, was heard by the Supreme Court of the United States in 2018. The case addressed 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 a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission evaluated the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Supreme Court ruling

The Supreme Court issued its ruling on the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on June 4, 2018. The Court ruled in favour of Masterpiece Cakeshop, finding that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the cake shop owner's right to the free exercise of his religion. The ruling was decided by a vote of 7-2.

The Court found that the Commission had failed to treat the case with religious neutrality, instead exhibiting hostility towards the owner's Christian religious beliefs. This was evidenced by the Commission's comparison of the owner's beliefs to the defence of slavery or the Holocaust, as well as their inconsistent handling of previous exemption requests. The Court emphasised that the State must ensure neutral and respectful consideration of religious exemption claims while also protecting gay Americans' rights.

The ruling did not address the broader issue of the intersection between anti-discrimination laws and the free exercise of religion. Instead, the Court focused on the specific circumstances of the case, including the Commission's failure to remain religiously neutral. The Court suggested that if the Commission had remained neutral, the outcome may have been different, indicating a delicate balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination protections.

The decision was authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, who was joined by five other Justices, including Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch. Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented, believing that the Commission acted fairly in evaluating the case.

The ruling set a precedent for future cases involving religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws, with the Court recognising the need for tolerance and respect for differing opinions. The decision also highlighted the complexity of balancing religious beliefs with the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals to equal access to goods and services.

The Masterpiece Cakeshop case has had a significant impact on similar cases across the country, with lower courts considering its implications when ruling on disputes between religious freedom and anti-discrimination protections. The case continues to shape the legal landscape surrounding these issues, with ongoing debates and challenges arising.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission's decision

Masterpiece Cakeshop then appealed to the Supreme Court of Colorado, which declined to hear the case. The bakery then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled in their favour. The U.S. Supreme Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not remain religiously neutral during its evaluation of the case, violating the bakery owner Jack Phillips's right to the free exercise of his religion. The U.S. Supreme Court's decision, however, did not set a broad precedent regarding the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and the free exercise of religion, leaving that issue to be resolved in future cases.

The couple's complaint

In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado planned to get lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At the time, same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado, although by 2014 the state 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 of the bakery, Jack Phillips, declined their request, stating that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages due to his Christian religious beliefs. Craig and Mullins promptly left the bakery without further discussion.

The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who reiterated that he did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time. Despite obtaining a cake from another bakery, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). This law prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.

Craig and Mullins' complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop. They argued that Phillips had discriminated against them on the basis of their sexual orientation, which was protected under CADA. The couple sought not only an order for Masterpiece Cakeshop to provide cakes to same-sex marriages but also for the bakery to change its company policies, provide comprehensive staff training regarding public accommodations discrimination, and submit quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps taken to comply with the law.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission evaluated the case and found that Masterpiece Cakeshop had indeed discriminated against the couple, issuing specific orders for the bakery to comply with. The Commission's decision was affirmed through appeals within the state, leading Masterpiece Cakeshop to take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

The baker's appeal

The bakers appeal

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (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 case involved a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs.

The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, declined the request from Charlie Craig and David Mullins to create a custom wedding cake for their celebration in 2012. At the time, same-sex marriage was prohibited in Colorado, although by 2014 the state allowed same-sex marriages. Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against 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. 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 a 7-2 decision that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips's rights to the free exercise of religion, and reversed the Commission's decision.

Phillips and his lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the First Amendment guarantees Phillips the freedom to decline requests for wedding cakes that celebrate marriages in conflict with his religious beliefs, as his wedding cakes are a form of artistic expression. They argued that:

> "Robust religious and expressive freedoms advance pluralism, protect other civil liberties, and promote true tolerance and civility. These freedoms benefit everyone, no matter their beliefs about same-sex marriage."

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case in late June 2017, after Neil Gorsuch joined the Court, and oral arguments were presented on December 5, 2017. The Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, reversing the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Court found that the Commission's review of Phillips's case exhibited hostility towards his religious views, violating the "State's obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

While the Supreme Court ruled in favour of Phillips, it did not rule broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise, instead addressing both sides. The Court affirmed that there remains protection of same-sex couples and gay rights, which states can enforce through anti-discrimination laws.

Following the Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Phillips was involved in a separate case, Scardina v. Masterpiece, where he was sued by Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman, who requested a pink cake with blue frosting for her birthday to celebrate her transition from male to female. Phillips refused the request, and Scardina filed a complaint with the Colorado Division of Civil Rights, which found that the bakery discriminated against her transgender status. The case made its way to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which agreed that Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop violated Scardina's rights. Phillips's lawyers appealed the decision, arguing that he refused service based on his sincere Christian beliefs and that forcing him to make the cake would violate his free speech rights. The appeal was rejected, and Phillips's lawyers vowed to appeal further.

The broader implications

One of the key implications of the case is the balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. The case raised questions about whether business owners can refuse services based on religious beliefs, specifically in conflict with anti-discrimination laws that protect customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The court's decision affirmed that religious beliefs may justify actions that would otherwise violate non-discrimination laws in certain circumstances, but it also emphasised the need for religious neutrality and impartiality in such cases. This sets a precedent for future disputes, suggesting that while religious beliefs may be considered, they should not be the sole basis for denying services and that decisions must be made with tolerance and respect for the rights of all parties involved.

Another implication of the case is the interpretation of what constitutes "speech" or "expression" under the First Amendment. The court's decision drew a distinction between the act of creating a custom cake and the expression of free speech or the free exercise of religion. It was determined that the act of making the cake was part of the expected conduct of the bakery's business and did not qualify as protected speech or expression. This interpretation has implications for similar cases, such as those involving wedding-related services like photography, flowers, or rental of venues, as well as other goods and services provided to same-sex couples.

The case also highlighted the role of state and federal governments in enforcing anti-discrimination laws. While the Colorado Civil Rights Commission argued that the state law was intended to ensure equal access to goods and services for same-sex couples, the court's decision suggested that religious exemptions to these laws may be necessary in certain circumstances. This has implications for the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws at the state and federal levels, with some states, like Arizona, upholding these laws in similar cases. The involvement of the Department of Justice under the Trump administration, which supported the bakery, also indicated a potential shift in federal enforcement priorities.

The wedding cake court case has had a significant impact on future legal challenges and the broader societal debate surrounding LGBTQ+ rights and religious freedom. The decision encouraged the "religious right" to challenge laws protecting LGBTQ+ individuals from discrimination, while also reassuring LGBTQ+ advocates that the majority opinion contained strong language about the importance of enforcing these laws. The case underscored the delicate balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination protections, with the court recognising that future disputes must be resolved with tolerance and respect for the rights of all parties involved.

Frequently asked questions