Supreme court cake case
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission ()
Excerpt: Majority Opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy
In a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop’s owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages the Mention of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. . . .
The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to shield the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.
The freedoms asserted here are both the independence of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for
In summary
A California appeals court rules a baker can’t refuse to sell a generic cake to a lesbian couple. It’s part of a series of cases shaping the debate over free speech and anti-discrimination laws.
A Kern County baker violated California law when she refused to sell a cake to a lesbian couple for their wedding, a mention appeals court ruled this week in a suit brought by the state’s Civil Rights Department.
If the scenario sounds familiar, that’s because it’s central to a series of cases that have for years been shaping the nation’s legal debate over free speech and anti-discrimination laws.
In , the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a Colorado ruling that a baker had violated that state’s nondiscrimination law when he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex couple’s wedding. The ruling was based on the court’s finding that the Colorado civil rights commission handling the case had been prejudiced against the baker’s religious beliefs.
The court in ruled, also in a Colorado case, in favor of a website designer who opposed same-sex marriage on religious grounds
Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
LII note: The U.S Supreme Court has now decided Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Issues
Does compelling a business owner to engage in artistic expression which goes against his deeply-held religious beliefs in accordance with Colorado’s public accommodation anti-discrimination law violate either the Free Speech Clause or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment?
December 05, Colorado Supreme Court This case asks the Supreme Court to balance public accommodation anti-discrimination laws and First Amendment rights. Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”) prohibits commercial businesses from denying service to patrons based on protected characteristics, including sexual orientation. Masterpiece Cakeshop and its owner Jack Phillips contend that CADA violates their First Amendment rights to free artistic expression and religious belief. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (“CCRC”) and Charlie Craig and David Mullins counter that Masterpiece Cakeshop’s First Amendme
- Becket Role:
- Amicus
Scoreboard
- Decision:
- Won
- Decision Date:
- June 4,
- Deciding Court:
- U.S. Supreme Court
Case Snapshot
In July , a same-sex couple asked Jack Phillips, a Christian baker who runs Masterpiece Cake Shop in Denver, Colorado, to bake a cake for their wedding. After Phillips explained that he could not participate in their wedding ceremony because of his faith, the couple filed a complaint against Masterpiece with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in June , and he lost his appeal at the Colorado Court of Appeals in August In September , the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear Phillips' case, and Becket filed a friend-of-the-court brief supporting Phillips and defending his right to decline to participate in wedding ceremonies if doing so would violate his sincere religious beliefs. On June 4, , the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Free Exercise Clause of the Constitution protects Jack Phillips from unfair treatment based on his religious beliefs.
Status
On June 4, , the Justices ruled that t