2015 COA 115
Colo. Ct. App.2015Background
- In July 2012 Charlie Craig and David Mullins (a same-sex couple) asked Masterpiece Cakeshop, owned by Jack C. Phillips, to design a wedding cake; Phillips refused based on his religious opposition to same-sex marriage and offered other bakery goods instead.
- Craig and Mullins filed a discrimination charge under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA); the Division found probable cause and the ALJ granted summary judgment for the couple; the Colorado Civil Rights Commission affirmed and issued a cease-and-desist order with remedial requirements.
- Masterpiece and Phillips appealed, arguing (inter alia) lack of jurisdiction over Phillips, defective charging documents, that refusing the cake was not discrimination "because of" sexual orientation, and that applying CADA violated their First Amendment free-speech and free-exercise rights.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed de novo legal questions (motions to dismiss, statutory interpretation, constitutional claims) and affirmed the Commission’s order.
- Key holdings: (1) relation-back doctrine permitted adding Phillips as a respondent; (2) Masterpiece’s categorical refusal to make a same-sex wedding cake violated CADA because the conduct (same-sex marriage) is closely correlated with sexual orientation; (3) CADA’s enforcement did not constitute compelled expressive conduct; (4) CADA is a neutral, generally applicable law and survives free-exercise challenge under Smith and Colorado law.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jurisdiction over Phillips / relation back | Plaintiffs argued the claim arose from same conduct and Phillips had notice | Phillips argued initial charge named only Masterpiece so Commission lacked jurisdiction over him | Relation-back under C.R.C.P. 15(c) applied: Phillips had notice and identity mistake; motion denied |
| Sufficiency of Division's notice (wrong statute cited) | Plaintiffs relied on charge and notice referencing public-accommodations section | Defendants argued typographical citation error to employment statute deprived notice | Error was typographical; respondents were not misled; motion denied |
| Whether refusal was "because of" sexual orientation under CADA | Plaintiffs: refusing to make a same-sex wedding cake discriminated based on sexual orientation | Masterpiece: refusal was based on opposition to same-sex marriage (conduct), not orientation | Court held conduct (same-sex marriage) is inseparable from sexual orientation here; CADA violation affirmed |
| Compelled expressive conduct / First Amendment | Plaintiffs: state interest in enforcing public-accommodation law; no compelled message | Masterpiece: making a wedding cake is expressive and the order compels celebratory message for same-sex marriage | Court held selling a cake generally is not inherently expressive in context; compelled-speech not shown; claim fails |
| Free exercise challenge (First Amendment & Colo. Const.) | Plaintiffs: neutral law of general applicability governs; no strict scrutiny | Masterpiece: CADA not neutral/generally applicable and/or asserts hybrid free-exercise + free-expression claim | Court concluded CADA is neutral and generally applicable; Smith applies; rational basis satisfied; hybrid-rights exception inapplicable |
| Scope of Commission's remedial order | Plaintiffs: Commission may fashion remedies to eliminate discriminatory practice | Masterpiece: order exceeded statutory authority by applying to unidentified parties/pattern | Court held remedies aimed at the discriminatory practice and within statutory authority; order valid |
Key Cases Cited
- West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (compelled speech doctrine prohibits forcing individuals to express state orthodoxy)
- Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705 (1977) (state may not force private display of a motto on license plates)
- Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 547 U.S. 47 (2006) (government cannot force a speaker to accommodate a third party’s message; distinguishes compelled access from compelled endorsement)
- Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (parade organizers’ selection of participants is protected where individual expressions are attributed to sponsors)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (standard for determining expressive conduct)
- United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968) (government may regulate noncommunicative aspects of conduct that incidentally affects expression)
- Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (law targeting religious practices is not neutral or generally applicable)
- Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral laws of general applicability need only be rationally related to legitimate interests)
- Obergefell v. Hodges, 135 S. Ct. 2584 (2015) (denial of marriage to same-sex couples is discrimination disadvantaging gays and lesbians)
- Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 309 P.3d 53 (N.M. 2013) (public-accommodations law prohibits refusal of services for same-sex weddings; photography business case finding no compelled endorsement)
- Tesmer v. Colorado High School Activities Association, 140 P.3d 249 (Colo. App. 2006) (CADA discrimination requires showing that membership in protected class was a but-for cause of denial)