On June 4, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed in a 7-2 decision the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. (later Masterpiece). The fundamental legal question in the case was whether Colorado’s public accommodations law, which would compel a cake maker to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple despite his religious objections, violated the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. The case was closely watched and analyzed during 2018, garnering significant attention from the media and different advocacy groups. However, to many the Court’s narrow decision was a disappointment leaving the actual key legal issue unresolved (American Bar Association). Nevertheless, the case sparked important discussion about balancing the protection of religious beliefs with the prevention of discrimination against protected persons. It is crucial to take a closer look at what the Supreme Court actually had to say in its ruling, especially when it comes to the 303 creative case.
Throughout its history, Colorado has prohibited discrimination in places of public accommodation. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (later CADA) today continuing this tradition to include protection against discrimination based on sexual orientation. According to CADA it is 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 goods and services among other things in a place of public accommodation. Additionally, CADA establishes a layered administrative system for addressing discrimination claims in Colorado, with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (later Commission) playing a major role. The Commission ultimately decides whether a violation of CADA has occurred.
In 2012, a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to inquire about a wedding cake for their upcoming wedding. The shop owner, Phillips, a devout Christian, informed the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding due to his religious beliefs and opposition to same-sex marriages. Subsequently, the couple filed a charge alleging discrimination based on sexual orientation in violation of CADA. The Commission determined that Phillips had violated CADA and ruled in favor of the couple. The ruling was later affirmed by the Colorado Court of Appeals. Before the Supreme Court, Phillips raised two constitutional claims: First, that enforcing CADA to compel him to make a cake for the same-sex couple would violate his First Amendment right to free speech, as it would force him to express a message he disagreed with. Second, he argued that being required to make the cake would violate his right to the free exercise of religion, also protected by the First Amendment. These claims were rejected both administratively and by the Court of Appeal. During the Commission hearing, some members expressed skepticism about the sincerity of Phillips’ religious beliefs.
The fundamental legal question of the case remained unresolved, as mentioned above, due to proceedings in the Commission. The Court held that the Commission’s conduct in evaluating Phillips’ reasons for declining to make the wedding cake violated the Free Exercise Clause. Therefore, the Commission’s decision had to be overturned. The Court couldn’t overlook the statements and found them clearly indicating bias against religion. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring fair and impartial adjudication in cases involving claims of freedom and discrimination. The Court concluded that the outcome of similar cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.
The Supreme Court raises challenging questions about balancing two key principles in Masterpiece. The first concerns the government’s role in protecting the rights of gay individuals from discrimination when seeking goods or services. The second principle involves upholding the fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, including freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. A major issue in the case is a disagreement over the extent of Phillips’ refusal to provide service. Refusing to create a custom cake celebrating a marriage differs from refusing to sell any cake at all. These nuances are crucial in determining whether a baker’s creation is entitled to protection under the law. Additionally, they make the task of drawing an analogy between Masterpiece and 303 creative a hard one.
In the majority opinion, the Court states that while religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law citing the Hurley case. The Court states that while refusing to create a cake with specific message might be protected as an exercise of free speech, refusing to provide a service to someone based on their identity could be viewed as discriminatory. The Court held in Masterpiece that Phillips’ conduct was not expressive and thus not protected speech. However, Justice Thomas argued in his concurring opinion that Phillips’ creation of custom wedding cakes is expressive and protected speech. According to Thomas, compelling him to make the cake violates his First Amendment rights. Conversely, Justice Ginsburg’s dissenting opinion reiterated the majority’s stance as it would be inconsistent with First Amendment precedents. Ginsburg emphasized that for conduct to be protected expression, it must be reasonably understood as communicative, a point also noted by Justice Thomas in his concurrence, albeit with a different outcome. Ginsburg strongly disagreed with the Court’s decision that the same-sex couple should lose the case. I believe one of the main differences between 303 creative case and Masterpiece lies in whether the actions of the petitioners constitute expressive conduct and therefore qualify as protected speech with otherwise sharing similar facts. In 303 creative the question of whether the conduct constituted protected speech was more apparent.
It seems like this case, along with the 303 Creative case and the others, demonstrates that the balance between LGBTQIA+ rights and religious rights has been a long-standing debate in the United States, and unfortunately remains a significant issue in contemporary society. Justice Thomas stated in his concurring opinion in Masterpiece that he warned the Court in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S 644 (2015), (marriage equality), that the Court’s decision would inevitably come into conflict with religious liberty. He also stated that this conflict has already emerged. And sadly, indeed it has.
Team L. M. S. L. A (303 Creative, Case Genetics)