Documentation of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
By: Dane Holmes
Tags: Gay Rights, Religious Freedom, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties

For nearly six years, the participants of the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case waited for an answer as the case kept getting appealed to higher and higher courts. The incident involved a denial of service to a gay couple because of the shop owner’s religious beliefs. That happened in 2012, on June 26, 2015 same-sex marriage was made legal nationwide with the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, setting an expectation for marriage equality and protection (History.com Editors). It wasn’t until mid 2018 that Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was finally taken up by the Supreme Court of the United States. The question of whether or not the United States Supreme Court ruled justly on the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case is a question of individual freedoms, conservative ideology, versus anti-discrimination, liberal ideology.

The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution, among other things, guarantees the freedom of Speech and the Freedom of Religion. In other words, the State is not allowed to act in favor of or against any religion. Conservative parties are very fond of these rules and will typically advocate for them whenever the argument involves them. In contrast, liberal parties champion laws like the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which prevents discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex or national origin. In a sense, both parties want a level playing field. The main point of contention is the method to level that playing field, whether by equal opportunity through state impartiality, or equal accommodation through state action.

The conditions of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission set up a precarious situation for the Supreme Court. According to David G. Savage, Charles Craig and David Mullins, a gay couple, were politely denied a wedding cake made by Jack Phillips, the Christian owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado. Another piece of information to note is, “The record indicates that Craig’s mother also may have asked if she could purchase a cake for her son’s reception. This request appears also to have been refused” (Satta). Also according to Savage, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission charged Jack Phillips with violating the state’s anti-discrimination law that says businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. The commission ordered Phillips to provide wedding cakes on an equal basis for same-sex couples. Phillips eventually appealed to the Supreme Court on the basis that religious freedom guaranteed by the 1st Amendment exempted him from producing cakes contradictory to his biblical teachings. Phillips had a history of not creating Halloween themed cakes or any baked goods with anti-American or anti-family themes, as well as anything with profane messages. As a result of being forced to create cakes for same-sex couples, Phillips decided to stop making wedding cakes altogether as he waited for his appeal to go through. The stage was set for a very interesting discussion about individual rights and freedoms. This case could set a precedent for public businesses as a whole.

That precedent would take its time to be set however; the actual incident happened in 2012, but it wasn’t until 2018 that the Supreme Court would finally vote on it. On June 4, 2018, Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court, “the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions” (Supreme Court of the United States 5). A 7–2 vote ruled in favor of Phillips. Justice Gorsuch stated, “ the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to act neutrally toward Jack Phillips’s religious faith. Maybe most notably, the Commission allowed three other bakers to refuse a customer’s request that would have required them to violate their secular commitments” (Supreme Court of the United States 26). Gorsuch also writes that “[l]ike an emblem or flag, a cake for a same-sex wedding is a symbol that serves as a short cut from mind to mind, signifying approval of a specific system, idea, or institution” and that “[i]t is precisely that approval that Mr. Phillips intended to withhold in keeping with his religious faith” (Supreme Court of the United States 33). In summary, the Court ruled that religious freedom was protected by the 1st Amendment, and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with religious hostility; thus, violating the Constitution.

While the Supreme Court is always supposed to act neutrally, the basis of their argument boils down to a conservative ideal, individual freedom above all else. Religious freedom was always protected by the Constitution since the founding of the United States, but protection from discrimination, especially discrimination based on sexual and gender identity, has only been provided by the government in recent years. Conservatives, by definition, stick to tradition and like to keep things as they are. Liberals are more progressive by comparison. Another thing to note is that the religion being protected is Christianity, a highly popular religion within conservative parties. It can be reasoned that despite their belief of government impartiality, conservatives have proven themselves to be biased towards Christianity. When asked about same-sex marriage, most conservatives will respond like Phillips, “same-sex marriage goes against the teachings of the Bible.” The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages at the federal level, was signed into law in 1996 as a result of conservative backlash (History.com Editors). It is also important to consider that the incident took place in a place of business. Typical conservative policy advocates for little government involvement with the economy, allowing one to serve whomever they please and keep their individual freedoms. Phillips was also very polite in his refusal and offered other products in place of a wedding cake (Savage).

There were, however, two dissenting votes against Jack Phillips. Justice Ginsberg was joined by Justice Sotomayor in saying that, “Craig and Mullins were denied service based on an aspect of their identity that the State chose to grant vigorous protection from discrimination” (Supreme Court of the United States 58). In a sense, Craig and Mullins sexual identities should be protected more than Phillips’ religious identity and practices.

There is another character to mention though, William Jack, the man who requested three bakers to violate their secular commitments. He wanted “an open Bible with the words ‘God hates sin. Psalm 45:7’ on one side and ‘Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2’ on the other,” to which the three bakers refused. One baker, in response to Jack, said that they “accept all humans” (Satta). There is a certain difference in context between Phillips and the three other bakers. To put it simply, Craig and Mullins were not asking for a baker to write hate speech while Jack was. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission was following the rules they set: businesses open to the public may not deny service to customers based on their race, religion, gender or sexual orientation. In accordance with state law, the bakers did not serve Jack because, “it is more natural to associate the specific message with the creator of the good” (Satta).

Another argument to make is the type of person being discriminated against. Say, hypothetically, that a white woman and her black son want a superhero cake for the son’s birthday. The baker then denies them service after noticing that the boy is, in fact, black. When the baker is inevitably sued, “it would be a lousy defense for the baker to claim it’s not discrimination based on race because he is willing to deny service to a potential customer of any race (like the white mother) if they plan on using the cake for a celebration for a black person” (Satta). This is similar to how Phillips also denied service to Craig’s mother in addition to Craig and Mullins themselves. In Colorado, racial and sexual identities are given the same protection from discrimination.

In this specific case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Jack Phillips’ religious freedoms were deemed to overrule Craig’s and Mullins’ state protection from discrimination. The idea of religious freedom is a pillar of conservative ideology. In a similar manner, anti-discrimination is a pillar of liberal ideology. But given the manner in which the situation played out, the lack of direct hate speech and the lack of a completely similar case, the Supreme Court stated that their ruling on Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not apply to similar cases or on civil rights as a whole (Supreme Court of the United States 21). It was also easier to rule in favor of religious freedom since it is federally protected and the anti-discrimination law Phillips violated was only a state law. But in any case, justice will always be subjective. The political parlays between conservative and liberal parties will almost always involve an abundance of arguing where both sides have something valid to say.

Works Cited

History.com Editors. “Same-Sex Marriage Is Made Legal Nationwide with Obergefell v. Hodges Decision.” HISTORY, A&E Television Networks, 23 June 2020, www.history.com/this-day-in-history/obergefell-v-hodges-ruling-same-sex-marriage-legalized-nationwide.

Satta, Mark. “Why You Can’t Sell Your Cake and Control It Too: Distinguishing Use from Design in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado.” Harvardcrcl, Harvard Civil Rights — Civil Liberties Law Review, 10 July 2019, harvardcrcl.org/why-you-cant-sell-your- cake-and-control-it-too-distinguishing-use-from-design-in-masterpiece-cakeshop-v-colorado/.

Savage, David G. “A Baker Refused to Make a Cake for a Gay Couple Due to Religious Beliefs. Supreme Court Will Rule on the Case in Fall.” Los Angeles Times, Los Angeles Times, 26 June 2017, www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-court- gays-religion-20170626-story.html.

This article sets the stage and conditions for the case before any rulings by the Supreme Court were made. A baker in Colorado refused service to a same-sex couple on the grounds of religious freedom and expression. The commission ruled that the baker violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination laws. Most Americans support the rights of same-sex couples to marry. Some on the Christian Right advocate that the government should not force believers to enforce marriages that conflict with their faith. The author of this article has covered Supreme Court cases since 1986 and has degrees from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and Northwestern University. I am using this source to cite the preliminary conditions and highlight the argument made in favor of religious freedom.

Supreme Court of the United States. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. 4 June 2018, www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/ 16–111_j4el.pdf.

This article is the opinion of every Supreme Court Justice on the case. Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the court, ruling in favor of the baker. Justice Ginsberg was the primary dissenting opinion, stating that the reason for the refusal of service violated anti-discrimination laws. The opinions stated by each judge neatly summarize both sides of the argument. I am using this primary source not only because it is perhaps the most primary source, but because it has the best showcase of the liberal argument thanks to Justice Ginsberg.