Help us improve in just 2 minutes—share your thoughts in our reader survey.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

From Ballotpedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Supreme Court of the United States
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Term: 2017
Important Dates
Argument: December 5, 2017
Decided: June 4, 2018
Outcome
Colorado Court of Appeals reversed
Vote
7 - 2 to reverse
Majority
Chief Justice John G. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Stephen Breyer • Elena Kagan • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Clarence Thomas
Concurring
Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Stephen Breyer • Elena Kagan
Dissenting
Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor


In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the U.S. Supreme Court held on June 4, 2018, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the state's constitutional obligation to treat religious expression neutrally when it showed religious hostility in an anti-discrimination case involving a baker who refused on religious grounds to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The court reversed the commission's decision requiring the bakery to provide wedding cakes to same-sex couples but did not rule on the broader constitutional questions of freedom of religion and anti-discrimination.

Masterpiece Cakeshop was argued during the October 2017 term. Argument in the case was held on December 5, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals.

The case generated significant public attention as one of the most important cases of the term. Brennan Linsley of Politico called the case "a culture wars blockbuster."[1] SCOTUSBlog, a blog dedicated to the U.S. Supreme Court, conducted a legal symposium on the case. Writing for The Washington Post, Craig Konnoth said the case, "is an important and dangerous battle in the broader war between religion and speech rights that conservatives claim on one hand, and LGBT rights, contraceptive access and compliance with health-care laws on the other."[2]

HIGHLIGHTS
  • The case: A same-sex couple solicited a Colorado business, Masterpiece Cakeshop, to make a wedding cake for them. The owner, Jack C. Phillips, refused to make the cake, citing his religious objections to same-sex weddings. The couple filed discrimination charges under Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). The Colorado Civil Rights Commission issued a cease-and-desist order to Masterpiece Cakeshop, which the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld over Phillips' allegations that both the order and CADA itself violated his First Amendment freedoms of expression and religious exercise.
  • The issue: "Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment."[3]
  • The outcome: On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 7-2 that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated Phillips' rights under the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.[4]


    • You can review the lower court's opinion here.[5]

    Background

    This was a case about whether Colorado's public accommodations law requiring a baker to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple violates the baker's rights to freedom of religious exercise and freedom of expression under the First Amendment. The law at issue was the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). When this case was before the Supreme Court, CADA stated, "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ... sexual orientation ... the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation." Applied to businesses like bakeries, CADA meant at the time that if a business is generally open to the public, the business cannot refuse to do business with a customer because of that customer's sexual orientation. Separately, the First Amendment both protects free speech and prohibits the government from compelling expression or expressive conduct that violates sincerely held religious beliefs.

    In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins requested that Masterpiece Cakeshop design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding. Jack C. Phillips, the owner, refused, informing Craig and Mullins that he did not design wedding cakes for same-sex couples because he objected to same-sex marriage on religious grounds. He offered to sell them any other type of baked good.[5][6]

    Craig and Mullins filed discrimination charges against Masterpiece under CADA with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division). They argued that Phillips' refusal to make a wedding cake for their same-sex wedding violated CADA's prohibition against discrimination based on sexual orientation because Phillips designed wedding cakes for heterosexual couples. An administrative law judge (ALJ) with Colorado's Office of Administrative Courts found in favor of Craig and Mullins. The Division investigated the charges and found probable cause to support their allegation of discrimination. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) upheld the ALJ's order and issued a cease-and-desist order requiring that Masterpiece "(1) take remedial measures, including comprehensive staff training and alteration to the company's policies to ensure compliance with CADA; and (2) file quarterly compliance reports for two years with the Division describing the remedial measures taken to comply with CADA and documenting all patrons who are denied service and the reasons for the denial."[5]

    Phillips appealed the Commission's order to the Colorado Court of Appeals. First, he acknowledged that Masterpiece was a place of public accommodation and covered by CADA, but he argued that he had not violated CADA. He emphasized that he would have complied with the law by selling them any baked goods except a wedding cake. He argued that his refusal to serve Craig and Mullins was not due to their sexual orientation but to their conduct — their decision to marry — and that refusal of service based on their conduct was not prohibited by CADA. Second, Phillips argued that the Commission's order violated his First Amendment rights. Phillips argued that unlike other baked goods, the creation of a wedding cake would compel expressive conduct that violated his religious beliefs.[5]

    Panel opinion

    A three-judge panel of the court composed of Chief Judge Alan Loeb and Judges Daniel Taubman and Michael Berger heard the appeal. In an opinion authored by Judge Taubman, the panel unanimously upheld the Commission's order in favor of Craig and Mullins.

    First, Judge Taubman rejected Phillips' argument that his refusal to make the wedding cake was based on Craig and Mullins' conduct rather than their sexual orientation. He wrote that their conduct was too closely tied to their sexual orientation status to separate the two:

    “ [Phillips] distinguishes between discrimination based on a person's status and discrimination based on a conduct closely correlated with that status. However, the United States Supreme Court has recognized that such distinctions are generally inappropriate. ... the Supreme Court recognized that, in some cases, conduct cannot be divorced from status. This is so when the conduct is so closely correlated with the status that it is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who have that particular status. We conclude that the act of same-sex marriage constitutes such conduct because it is 'engaged in exclusively or predominantly' by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Masterpiece’s distinction, therefore, is one without a difference. But for their sexual orientation, Craig and Mullins would not have sought to enter into a same-sex marriage, and but for their intent to do so, Masterpiece would not have denied them its services.[5][7] ”


    Taubman turned to Phillips' contention that making wedding cakes is expressive conduct that is protected under the First Amendment. Taubman wrote, "In deciding whether conduct is 'inherently expressive,' we ask whether ‘[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was great that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.’" In the court's view, the crafting of a wedding cake did not create a great likelihood that viewers would attribute the cake's message to Phillips personally. Taubman continued:

    “ To the extent that the public infers from a Masterpiece wedding cake a message celebrating same-sex marriage, that message is more likely to be attributed to the customer than to Masterpiece . . . The public recognizes that, as a for-profit bakery, Masterpiece charges its customers for its goods and services. The fact that an entity charges for its goods and services reduce the likelihood that a reasonable observer will believe that it supports the message expressed in its finished product. Nothing in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece’s providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple as an endorsement of same-sex marriage, rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business in accordance with Colorado’s public accommodations law.[5][7] ”


    Petitioner's challenge

    Masterpiece Cakeshop, the petitioner, challenged the holding of the Colorado Court of Appeals. Masterpiece argued that the Colorado court's decision was at odds "with Ninth and Eleventh Circuit decisions regarding the free speech protection of art ... and conflicts with free exercise rulings by the Third, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits."[3]

    Certiorari granted

    On July 22, 2016, Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack C. Phillips, the petitioners, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the United States in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The U.S. Supreme Court granted the request for certiorari on June 26, 2017. Argument in the case was held on December 5, 2017.[3]

    Question presented

    Question presented:

    "Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment."[3]

    Audio

    • Audio of oral argument:[8]



    Transcript

    • Transcript of oral argument:[9]

    Outcome

    Decision

    On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips, reversing the decision made by the Colorado Court of Appeals. The majority comprised Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.[4]

    Majority opinion

    Associate Justice Anthony Kennedy penned the majority decision, which was joined by Chief Justice John Roberts and Associate Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.[4] Kennedy wrote that the case involved a difficult balancing of interests: first, "the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination"; second, "the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment," including freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. But in this case, the court did not reach the core constitutional questions involved in the Colorado law or Phillips' refusal. Instead, Kennedy concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the state's constitutional obligation to treat religious expression neutrally by appearing hostile to religious beliefs. Those violations alone, he continued, required the court to reverse the Colorado Court of Appeals' decision.

    “ Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality . . . The delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.[4][7] ”


    Kennedy expressly left open the question of whether Phillips would prevail on the merits in a case where the adjudication process was fair. He described the balancing of interests at play in the case and the challenges of determining what conduct was expressive and protected under the First Amendment. He wrote, "Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."

    Setting aside those considerations, Kennedy concluded, "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 . . . However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order must be invalidated.[4]

    Concurrence by Justice Kagan

    Justice Elena Kagan concurred in the court's decision and also wrote separately, joined by Justice Stephen Breyer. Kagan agreed with the majority that the Commission's consideration had violated Phillips' rights. She wrote to emphasize her understanding of the courts' and Phillips' references to the cases of three other bakers. In those case, Kagan wrote, the Commission ruled in favor of bakers who had refused to make "cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text," for a customer named William Jack. Kagan argued that those cases were distinguishable from Phillips' case. In those cases, she argued, the customer asked the bakers to make cakes the baker would not have made for anyone; in Phillips' cases, she continued, Phillips refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple even though he would have made the same cake for an opposite sex couple.[4]

    “ The three bakers in the Jack cases did not violate that law. Jack requested them to make a cake (one denigrating gay people and same-sex marriage) that they would not have made for any customer. In refusing that request, the bakers did not single out Jack because of his religion, but instead treated him in the same way they would have treated anyone else—just as CADA requires. By contrast, the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple. In refusing that request, Phillips contravened CADA’s demand that customers receive 'the full and equal enjoyment' of public accommodations irrespective of their sexual orientation . . . I read the Court’s opinion as fully consistent with that view.[4][7] ”

    Concurrence by Justice Gorsuch

    Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in the court's decision and also wrote separately, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Gorsuch read the majority's opinion and the Commission's rulings in the William Jack cases differently than Kagan did. Gorsuch argued that the Commission erred in failing to treat Phillips' case in exactly the same way as it did the cases of the three bakers who refused to make the anti-same sex marriage cake for William Jack—in other words, he argued that the Commission should have found in Phillips' favor for the same reasons it found in favor of the bakers in those cases. Gorsuch believed that all four bakers were in the same situation. He wrote:

    “ The facts show that the two cases share all legally salient features. In both cases, the effect on the customer was the same: bakers refused service to persons who bore a statutorily protected trait (religious faith or sexual orientation). But in both cases the bakers refused service intending only to honor a personal conviction . . . [T]he bakers in the first case would have refused to sell a cake denigrating same-sex marriage to an atheist customer, just as the baker in the second case would have refused to sell a cake celebrating same-sex marriage to a heterosexual customer. And the bakers in the first case were generally happy to sell to persons of faith, just as the baker in the second case was generally happy to sell to gay persons. In both cases, it was the kind of cake, not the kind of customer, that mattered to the bakers.[4][7] ”


    Gorsuch concluded, "The problem here is that the Commission failed to act neutrally by applying a consistent legal rule."[4]

    Concurrence by Justice Thomas

    Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the court's judgment but not in the majority opinion. Thomas wrote separately, and his concurrence was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. In line with the reasoning of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, Thomas would have decided the case based on the Commission's ruling, rather than on the fairness of the process of adjudication. Referring to the different outcomes in the Commission's decisions in the William Jack cases and in this case, Thomas wrote, "Although the Commissioners’ comments are certainly disturbing, the discriminatory application of Colorado’s public-accommodations law is enough on its own to violate Phillips’ rights.[4]

    Addressing a question not directly resolved by the court's ruling, Thomas argued that the act of making a wedding cake was expressive conduct and was therefore protected by the First Amendment.

    “ By forcing Phillips to create custom wedding cakes for same­-sex weddings, Colorado’s public-accommodations law 'alter[s] the expressive content' of his message. The meaning of expressive conduct, this Court has explained, depends on 'the context in which it occur[s].' Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are 'weddings' and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to 'bear witness to [these] fact[s],' or to 'affir[m] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees.'[4][7] ”


    Dissent by Justice Ginsburg

    Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the court's ruling, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Ginsburg argued that the evidence of hostility to religion cited by the majority was not "of the kind we have previously held to signal a free-exercise violation." Ginsburg agreed with the distinction Justice Kagan made between the cases of the bakers approached by William Jack and this case. Jack, she wrote, requested a cake with specific images, statements, and Bible verses designed to express rejection of same-sex marriage:

    “ In contrast to Jack, Craig and Mullins simply requested a wedding cake: They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the cake they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips would have sold . . . The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack’s requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries’ refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips’ refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied.[4][7] ”


    Ginsburg also rejected the majority's reliance on comments made by some of the commissions. She concluded, "Whatever one may think of the statements in historical context, I see no reason why the comments of one or two Commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips’ refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins.[4]

    The opinion

    Aftermath

    Reactions

    The following is a sample of reactions to the court's ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission:

    “ Jack serves all customers; he simply declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held religious beliefs. Creative professionals who serve all people should be free to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of government punishment.[10][7] ”
    —Kristen Waggoner, Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Counsel
    “ The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people.[10][7] ”
    —Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union
    “ Four of the Justices did talk about the free speech issues here, and they split 2-to-2 (Justices Thomas and Alito would have accepted the free speech claim, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have rejected it given the facts of this case, which in their view didn't involve any expression on the cake at all). But for now, the important point is that the free speech debate, as well as the broader religious accommodation debate, remains unresolved.[11][7] ”
    —Eugene Volokh, Reason
    “ Masterpiece is a win for gay rights groups that want to bar discrimination against same-sex couples, so long as the law is applied neutrally and without hostility to religion. But whether the very same law could sometimes violate free speech rights is still totally open.[12][7] ”
    —SCOTUSblog
    “ Today's decision is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another day virtually of the major constitutional questions that this case presented. It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent.[10][7] ”
    —Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas School of Law
    “ SCOTUS did not rule that baker’s refusal to bake cake for same sex couple was constitutional. Court ruled the CO Human Rts Commn tribunal that ruled against the baker in MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP was not neutral but hostile to the claim. Baker was entitled to impartial decisionmaker.[13][7] ”
    —Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Director-Counsel of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
    “ No, the Court did not issue the sweeping free-speech ruling that many advocates hoped for and others feared. Instead it issued a ruling that reminded state authorities that people of faith have the exact same rights — and are entitled to the exact same treatment — as people of different faith or no faith at all. And it did so in an opinion that decisively rejected the exact talking points so favored by the anti-religious left."[14][7] ”
    —David French, senior writer for National Review
    “ The Court’s reasoning is bizarre. The two ambiguous statements of one of the Commissioners do not even qualify as evidence that the Commissioner who made the statements was biased against the baker, much less that the seven-member Commission was impermissibly biased, or that any such bias played a role in the decision making process.[15][7] ”
    —Richard J. Pierce Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Law at George Washington University Law School

    2018: Phillips cited for second violation

    In June 2018, the Colorado Civil Rights Commisssion ruled in a separate case that there was probable cause to believe Phillips violated state law by refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a gender transition from male to female.[16]

    The following is a sample of reactions to the commission's ruling:

    “ The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Court by continuing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs.[16][7] ”
    —Kristen Waggoner, Senior vice president of U.S. legal division, Alliance Defending Freedom
    “ The 7-to-2 Supreme Court decision [in Masterpiece Cakeshop] was in favor of Phillips — but focused on his treatment by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and did not necessarily set a standard for future similar cases.[17][7] ”
    —Amy B. Wang, reporter at The Washington Post

    See also

    Footnotes

    1. ↑ Politico, "The Most Important Cake in America," December 4, 2017
    2. ↑ The Washington Post, " No matter how the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is decided, gay rights win," December 6, 2017
    3. ↑ 3.0 3.1 3.2 3.3 Supreme Court of the United States, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Co. Civil Rights Commission, June 26, 2017
    4. ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 Supreme Court of the United States, "Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Decision," June 4, 2018 Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; name "june4decision" defined multiple times with different content
    5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 5.2 5.3 5.4 5.5 Colorado Court of Appeals, Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., and any successor entity, and Jack C. Phillips, and Colorado Civil Rights Commission, August 13, 2015
    6. ↑ No party or court has questioned Phillips' sincerely-held religious beliefs.
    7. ↑ 7.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 7.05 7.06 7.07 7.08 7.09 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 Note: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
    8. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, argued December 5, 2017
    9. ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, argued December 5, 2017
    10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 CNN, "Supreme Court rules for Colorado baker in same-sex wedding cake case," June 4, 2018
    11. ↑ Reason, "The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Leaves Almost All the Big Questions Unresolved," June 4, 2018
    12. ↑ Twitter, "SCOTUSblog," accessed June 4, 2018
    13. ↑ Twitter, "Sherrilyn Ifill," accessed June 4, 2018
    14. ↑ National Review, "In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Justice Kennedy Strikes a Blow for the Dignity of the Faithful," June 4, 2018
    15. ↑ Notice & Comment, "The Colorado Baker Opinion Should Not Be Considered an Administrative Law Precedent, by Richard J. Pierce, Jr.," accessed June 7, 2018
    16. ↑ 16.0 16.1 HotAir, "Retaliation? Masterpiece Cakeshop Comes Under Fire From Colorado Officials – Again; Update: Did Colorado Fall For A Troll?" August 15, 2018
    17. ↑ The Washington Post, "Baker claims religious persecution again — this time after denying cake for transgender woman," August 15, 2018
    Retrieved from "https://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php?title=Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission&oldid=8709449"