In 2012, a Colorado bakery owner named Jack Philips refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple, citing his religious beliefs. This incident led to a long legal battle that eventually reached the Supreme Court of the United States. On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court handed down its ruling in the case, known as Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The Background
Masterpiece Cakeshop is a bakery located in Lakewood, Colorado. The owner, Jack Phillips, is a devout Christian who believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman. In 2012, Phillips refused to make a wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple who were planning to get married in Massachusetts and celebrate with a reception in Colorado. Phillips cited his religious beliefs as the reason for his refusal.
Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, claiming that Phillips had violated the state’s anti-discrimination laws, which prohibit businesses from refusing service based on sexual orientation. The Commission ruled in favor of Craig and Mullins, and ordered Phillips to provide cakes for same-sex weddings in the future or face fines.
Phillips appealed the ruling, arguing that his religious beliefs protected him from having to make a cake that went against his convictions. The case eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court Decision
In a 7-2 decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips. However, the ruling was based on narrow grounds and did not address the larger issues of religious freedom and discrimination.
The Court’s opinion, written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, focused on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of Phillips during the hearings. Kennedy wrote that some commissioners had shown “clear and impermissible hostility” towards Phillips’ religious beliefs, and that the Commission’s treatment of Phillips had not been neutral.
“Government hostility toward people of faith has no place in our society,” Kennedy wrote. “Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences are essential in a society like ours. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.”
The Court did not determine whether or not Phillips had a right to refuse service based on his religious beliefs. Instead, it focused on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s actions and overturned its ruling against Phillips.
Reactions to the Decision
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop was met with mixed reactions. Supporters of Phillips and religious freedom praised the decision, while LGBTQ rights advocates expressed disappointment and concern about the potential implications for anti-discrimination laws.
Some legal experts pointed out that the narrow scope of the decision left many questions unanswered, and that future cases involving similar issues would need to be addressed by the courts.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was a victory for Jack Phillips and religious freedom, but it did not provide a clear answer to the larger questions of discrimination and LGBTQ rights. The decision highlighted the importance of religious neutrality in government proceedings and set a precedent for how future cases involving similar issues may be handled.
FAQ
What bakery was sued for discrimination?
In 2018, Tastries Bakery, located in Bakersfield, California, was sued for discrimination by the state Department of Fair Housing and Employment. The lawsuit was filed against the bakery’s owner, Cathy Miller, who was accused of intentionally discriminating against a same-sex couple. The couple, Eileen and Mireya Rodriguez-Del Rio, had requested a wedding cake for their upcoming wedding, but Miller refused to provide her bakery services to them, citing her religious beliefs as a justification.
The state agency argued that Miller’s refusal amounted to a violation of California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on various personal attributes, including sexual orientation. The agency contended that Tastries Bakery was a business which offered goods and services to the public and therefore had to adhere to the state’s non-discrimination laws.
The lawsuit generated significant controversy and debate, with many people expressing divergent views on the matter. Some individuals sided with Cathy Miller, asserting that she had the right to refuse service to customers whose actions or beliefs she disagreed with. Others supported the couple and the state agency, arguing that discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation was wrong and should not be tolerated.
After several months of legal wrangling, the case was ultimately settled through mediation in early 2019, with Miller agreeing to pay $135,000 in damages to the couple. The settlement also included a court injunction requiring the bakery to comply with the state’s anti-discrimination laws and to post a notice to inform customers that they cannot be turned away based on their sexual orientation or gender identity.
What is the street law in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado?
The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado was a landmark case that addressed the issue of discrimination based on sexual orientation. The controversy arose when a Colorado couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, attempted to purchase a cake for their wedding from Masterpiece Cakeshop, a business owned by Jack Phillips, a devoutly religious baker who refused to create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage due to his religious beliefs. The couple filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was found in their favor, leading to a series of appeals that ultimately reached the Supreme Court.
The central issue in this case was whether Phillips’ refusal to create a cake for a same-sex wedding constituted discrimination under Colorado law. The state had a longstanding law that prohibited places of public accommodation, including businesses open to the public, from discriminating against customers based on their characteristics such as race, religion, or sexual orientation. The Supreme Court ultimately ruled in favor of Phillips, but it was a narrow decision that did not set a broad precedent.
The Court did not question the validity of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, rather it focused on the conduct of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which it found to have displayed animus against Phillips’ religious beliefs. The Court held that the Commission violated Phillips’ First Amendment rights by expressing hostility towards his religious beliefs, and therefore acted with “clear and impermissible hostility” toward Phillips’ religious convictions.
The street law in Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado is that longstanding Colorado state law prohibits public accommodations, including businesses open to the public such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, from refusing service based on characteristics like race, religion, or sexual orientation. However, in this specific case, the Court found that the conduct of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission in expressing hostility towards Phillips’ religious beliefs violated his First Amendment rights.
Who won the Colorado cake case?
The Colorado cake case refers to the controversial legal battle between a baker, Jack Phillips, and a couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins, over Phillips’ decision to refuse to make a wedding cake for them on the grounds of his religious beliefs. After the couple filed a discrimination complaint, claiming that Phillips had violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws, the case eventually made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phillips in the same-sex wedding cake case, stating that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission showed “hostility” towards Phillips’ religious beliefs in how it handled the case. The decision was a narrow one and did not set a precedent for whether business owners can use religion as a basis for denying services to LGBTQ+ individuals.
However, Phillips continued to face legal challenges in a separate case when he refused to make a cake celebrating a gender transition. In that case, the Colorado Court of Appeals upheld the state’s anti-discrimination law, stating that Phillips did not have the right to refuse service based on the customer’s gender identity.
On Thursday, March 5, 2020, Phillips lost his appeal of the ruling in the gender transition cake case. The three-judge panel of the state appeals court unanimously ruled that the state’s anti-discrimination law does not violate Phillips’ free speech and free exercise of religion rights.
Jack Phillips, the Colorado baker who refused to make a cake for a gay couple and won a narrow Supreme Court victory in 2018, lost his appeal of a ruling in a separate case that he violated a state anti-discrimination law by not making a cake to celebrate a gender transition. Therefore, the Colorado court upheld the state’s anti-discrimination law that businesses cannot refuse services based on gender identity.
