Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n
138 S. Ct. 1719
| SCOTUS | 2018Background
- In 2012 Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop (a Colorado bakery and self-described artist), refused to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious objection to same-sex marriage; he offered to sell other non-wedding baked goods.
- The couple filed a charge under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA); the Civil Rights Division found probable cause, an ALJ ruled for the couple, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission affirmed and ordered remedial measures (but no monetary damages).
- Colorado courts affirmed the statutory violation and rejected Phillips’ First Amendment free exercise and free speech claims; the Colorado Supreme Court denied review.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether the Commission’s enforcement violated the First Amendment (free exercise and free speech).
- The Supreme Court (majority opinion by Kennedy) held the Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause because the Commission’s adjudication displayed hostility to Phillips’ religious beliefs (public comments comparing religious objections to slavery/Holocaust and apparent disparate treatment compared with other bakers).
- The Court did not resolve broad questions about when a baker’s creation is protected speech or the ultimate reach of public‑accommodations laws; it reversed on the narrower ground of religious‑neutrality violations and remanded (invalidating the Commission’s order).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Free Exercise — neutrality of adjudicator | Phillips: Commission punished religiously motivated refusal and showed hostility; therefore Free Exercise violated. | Commission/State: CADA is neutral, generally applicable; no exemption for religious objections. | Held for Phillips: Commission showed impermissible hostility (comments, disparate treatment) so Free Exercise violated. |
| Free Speech — expressive conduct (wedding cake) | Phillips: creating custom wedding cakes is expressive/artistic speech; compelled creation would force him to endorse a message. | State: making/selling cakes is conduct covered by public‑accommodations law, not protected speech here. | Not decided on the merits by majority; some concurrences (Thomas) argue cakes are expressive and warrant strict scrutiny; Court remanded on neutrality ground only. |
| Application of public‑accommodations law (CADA) | Phillips: limited refusal to create a celebratory message (wedding cake) should be distinguished from blanket refusal to sell goods. | State: public‑accommodations law requires equal access to goods/services on neutral terms; selling wedding cakes to same‑sex couples cannot be denied. | Court: recognized State interest in protecting access but stressed application must be neutral toward religion; did not adopt a broad rule for all future cases. |
| Evidence of disparate treatment/hostility | Phillips: Commission treated his religious objection differently than other bakers who refused to create anti‑gay messages; commissioners made disparaging remarks about religion. | State: different cases involved different requests (offensive messages vs. ordinary wedding cakes); no proof of unconstitutional hostility. | Court: found commissioners’ statements and inconsistent treatment sufficient to infer nonneutral motive; relief required. |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (context on same‑sex marriage developments)
- Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520 (1993) (government may not act with hostility toward religion; neutrality required)
- Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872 (1990) (neutral, generally applicable laws survive Free Exercise challenges)
- Hurley v. Irish‑American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (compelled inclusion in expressive parade alters expressive content)
- Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400 (1968) (public‑accommodations law bars refusals to serve on protected grounds)
- West Virginia Bd. of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624 (1943) (government cannot prescribe orthodoxy of opinion or force speech)
- Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989) (symbolic conduct can be protected expression)