Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 5

2 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO 
CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N
 
Opinion of the Court 

goods or services.  The second is the right of all persons to
exercise  fundamental  freedoms  under  the  First  Amend-
ment,  as  applied  to  the  States  through  the  Fourteenth
Amendment. 

The  freedoms  asserted  here  are  both  the  freedom  of 
speech  and  the  free  exercise  of  religion.    The  free  speech
aspect  of  this  case  is  difficult,  for  few  persons  who  have 
seen  a  beautiful  wedding  cake  might  have  thought  of  its 
creation  as  an  exercise  of  protected  speech.  This  is  an 
instructive  example,  however,  of  the  proposition  that  the 
application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can
deepen our understanding of their meaning. 

One  of  the  difficulties  in  this  case  is  that  the  parties
disagree  as  to  the  extent  of  the  baker’s  refusal  to  provide 
service.  If  a  baker  refused  to  design  a  special  cake  with 
words or images celebrating the marriage—for instance, a 
cake  showing  words  with  religious  meaning—that  might 
be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all.  In defin-
ing  whether  a  baker’s  creation  can  be  protected,  these
details might make a difference. 

The  same  difficulties  arise  in  determining  whether  a 
baker has a valid free exercise claim.  A baker’s refusal to 
attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right
way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decora-
tions on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has 
been  baked  for  the  public  generally  but  includes  certain
religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of 
possibilities that seem all but endless.

Whatever  the  confluence  of  speech  and  free  exercise 
principles  might  be  in  some  cases,  the  Colorado  Civil 
Rights Commission’s consideration of this case was incon-
sistent  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.    The 
Court’s precedents make clear that the baker, in his capac-
ity  as  the  owner  of  a  business  serving  the  public,  might