Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n

138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

A same-sex couple visited D, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. D is an expert baker who has owned and operated the shop for 24 years. D is a devout Christian. He has explained that his “main goal in life is to be obedient to” Jesus Christ and Christ’s “teachings in all aspects of his life.” To D, creating a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would be equivalent to participating in a celebration that is contrary to his own most deeply held beliefs. D told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages-marriages. Colorado has prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodation. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) prohibits discrimination in places of public accommodation. It was amended in 2007 and 2008 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as other protected characteristics. The Act defines “public accommodation” broadly to include any “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . . . to the public,” but excludes “a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes.” The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (P) alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. D raised two constitutional claims before the ALJ. He first asserted that applying CADA in a way that would require him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his First Amendment right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed. The ALJ rejected the contention that preparing a wedding cake is a form of protected speech and did not agree that creating Craig and Mullins’ cake would force D to adhere to “an ideological point of view.” D also contended that requiring him to create cakes for same-sex weddings would violate his right to the free exercise of religion, also protected by the First Amendment. P determined that D’s actions violated the Act and ruled in the couple’s favor. The Colorado state courts affirmed the ruling and its enforcement order. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.