In a 7-2 decision, the United States Supreme Court held in favor of a Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs. The Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Baker’s First Amendment free-exercise rights by failing to maintain “religious neutrality.”
In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, and requested that the shop make a cake for their same-sex marriage. At this time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage. The couple planned to marry in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legal, and return to Colorado to celebrate with friends. The shop owner, Jack Phillips, refused, informing the couple that he does not design cakes for same-sex weddings because it conflicts with his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages.
Colorado has a longstanding public accommodations law, which prohibits businesses from engaging in discrimination based on characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission claiming that Masterpiece had discriminated against them based on their sexual orientation in violation of this public accommodations law. After investigating the claim, the Commission recommended a formal hearing and sent the case to a State Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”). The ALJ found that Masterpiece had engaged in prohibited discrimination and the Commission affirmed in full. The Commission ordered Masterpiece to cease and desist from discriminating based on sexual orientation by refusing to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples. Masterpiece appealed the decision and the Court of Appeals also affirmed the ALJ’s decision.
The Supreme Court reversed this decision and found in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop. The Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the free-exercise rights of Phillips by failing to maintain “religious neutrality” throughout the adjudication of Phillip’s case. In reaching this conclusion, the Court pointed to several instances in the record where the commissioners “endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried in to the public sphere or commercial domain.” The Court stated that Phillips was entitled to a neutral decision maker who would give his religious objections “fair consideration.” The Commission failed to provide this and therefore, the Court invalidated the Commission’s order.
While this decision was one of the most anticipated of the term, the case was decided on a fairly narrow basis. The Court did not address the issue of whether a business can discriminate against gays and lesbians on the basis of their First Amendment religious rights. In this case, the Court concluded that Phillips did not get a fair hearing on his religious freedom relating to his decision not to make the cake. The Court made it clear that the decision does not condone discrimination based on sexual orientation. This decision still leaves open many questions that will likely return to the Courts to be answered.
Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD., v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111 (June 4, 2018).
If you have any questions, please contact Marc Fishel at mfishel@fisheldowney.com.