Baker's Stand: Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case In Colorado

The Colorado baker in the same-sex wedding cake case was Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. In 2012, Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his Christian religious beliefs. This sparked a years-long legal battle that reached the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018, known as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case centred around the question of whether business owners can refuse service based on their religious beliefs, in this case, refusing to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex marriage.

The baker's refusal to make a cake for a same-sex wedding

In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins planned to marry in Massachusetts and then return to their home state of Colorado to celebrate with family and friends. At the time, same-sex marriage was prohibited by the state constitution in Colorado, though this changed by 2014.

In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a wedding cake for their celebration. However, the owner of the bakery, Jack Phillips, refused to create a custom cake for the couple based on his Christian religious beliefs. Phillips informed the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages, though he stated they could purchase other baked goods in the store.

The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who reiterated that his bakery did not make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, citing his religious beliefs and the fact that Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time. Despite another bakery providing a cake to the couple, 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 case, known as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, eventually made its way to the Supreme Court of the United States. The Court ruled in favor of Phillips, deciding that the Commission did not remain religiously neutral during its evaluation of the case, thus violating Phillips's rights to free exercise. However, the Court did not rule on the broader issue of the intersection between anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.

The couple's subsequent complaint

In 2012, same-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins planned to marry in Massachusetts and then return to their home state of Colorado to celebrate with friends and family. At the time, same-sex marriage was prohibited by the state constitution in Colorado, although this changed by 2014.

In July 2012, Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, to order a wedding cake for their celebration. 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, but the following day, Craig's mother called Phillips, who reiterated his position.

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 on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation. The couple's complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, which ruled in favour of Craig and Mullins. The bakery was ordered to provide cakes to same-sex marriages, change its company policies, provide staff training on public accommodations discrimination, and submit quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps taken to comply with the law.

Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed the decision to the state Court of Appeals with the aid of Alliance Defending Freedom, and refused to comply with the state's orders. Instead, the bakery opted to remove itself from the wedding cake business, a decision Phillips claimed cost him 40% of his business. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the American Civil Liberties Union represented Craig and Mullins during the appeals process. The state's decision was upheld on the grounds that, despite the custom nature of the cake, the act of making it was part of the expected conduct of Phillips's business and not an expression of free speech or religion.

The Supreme Court of Colorado declined to hear an appeal, so Masterpiece Cakeshop petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari (review). The petition was granted, and the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments on December 5, 2017. In a 7-2 decision, the Court ruled that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips's rights to the free exercise of religion, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader issue of the intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission's ruling

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 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, including providing cakes to same-sex marriages, changing company policies, providing staff training on public accommodations discrimination, and submitting quarterly reports on compliance and any prospective customers turned away.

Masterpiece Cakeshop appealed the decision within the state and, when the Commission's decision was affirmed, took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips's rights to the free exercise of religion, and reversed the Commission's decision. The Court emphasized that the Commission's review of Phillips's case exhibited hostility towards his religious views, such as comparing his beliefs to the defense of slavery or the Holocaust.

It is important to note that the Supreme Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech due to the complications arising from the Commission's lack of religious neutrality. The Court's decision affirmed the protection of same-sex couples and gay rights, which states can enforce through anti-discrimination laws.

The baker's appeal

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 617 (2018) 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 Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple based on the owner's religious beliefs.

The baker, Jack Phillips, appealed the decision of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple, to the state Court of Appeals with the aid of Alliance Defending Freedom. The Commission's decision against the bakery was affirmed by the Court of Appeals, and the bakery then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in Phillips' favor, finding that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality and violated his rights to the free exercise of religion. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech.

Following the Supreme Court's decision, Phillips was involved in a similar case in 2018, where he refused to bake a cake for Autumn Scardina, a transgender woman, to celebrate her gender transition. Scardina filed a complaint with the Colorado Division of Civil Rights, which found that the bakery had discriminated against her transgender status. Phillips then sued the state, seeking an injunction against the enforcement of the relevant anti-discrimination law. In June 2019, Scardina brought a civil suit against Phillips, and in June 2021, he was fined $500 for violating Colorado's anti-discrimination law. Phillips appealed the decision, arguing that the cake was a form of speech protected by the First Amendment. However, in January 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals ruled against him, finding that the cake was not a protected form of speech and that the anti-discrimination law did not violate his freedom of religion.

Phillips appealed to the Colorado Supreme Court, which dismissed the case in October 2024 on the grounds that Scardina lacked standing to sue. The case did not rule on whether Phillips had discriminated against Scardina or whether his First Amendment rights had been violated.

The Supreme Court's decision

The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (584 U.S. 617) in 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, that refused to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex 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, and found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple. 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 U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of the baker, Jack Phillips, in a 7-2 decision. The Court held that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Phillips's rights to the free exercise of religion. The Court reversed the Commission's decision, stating that the Commission exhibited hostility toward Phillips's religious views.

The Court's opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, stated that a State decision "in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself" is a factor, violates the State's obligation of religious neutrality under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Kennedy's opinion noted that the Commission compared Phillips's religious beliefs to the defense of slavery or the Holocaust, which he found inappropriate for a Commission charged with enforcing Colorado's anti-discrimination law.

The Court's decision did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality. Instead, the Court addressed the need for neutral and respectful consideration of claims for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws while also affirming the protection of same-sex couples and gay rights.

Frequently asked questions