The Supreme Court is hearing arguments on Tuesday in one of the term’s most anticipated cases: whether the First Amendment protects a Colorado baker from creating a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Jack C. Phillips, who owns Masterpiece Cakeshop in a Denver suburb, contends that dual guarantees in the First Amendment — for free speech and for the free exercise of religion — protect him against Colorado’s public accommodations law, which requires businesses to serve customers equally regardless of “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.”
[Supreme Court asked if case protects religious rights or discrimination]
Scattered across the country, florists, bakers, photographers and others have claimed that being forced to offer their wedding services to same-sex couples violates their rights. Courts have routinely turned down the business owners — as the Colorado Court of Appeals did to Phillips in this case, saying that state anti-discrimination laws require businesses that are open to the public to treat all potential customers equally.
There’s no dispute about what happened.
In 2012, when same-sex marriage was still prohibited in Colorado, Charlie Craig and David Mullins decided to get married in Massachusetts, where it was legal. They would return to Denver for a reception, and those helping with the plans suggested they get a cake from Masterpiece.
The couple arrived with Craig’s mother and a book of ideas, but Phillips cut short the meeting as soon as he learned the cake was to celebrate the couple’s marriage.
Phillips recalled: “Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings.’ ”
The couple then learned that Colorado’s public accommodations law specifically prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, and they filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission.
The commission ruled against Phillips, and the appeals court upheld the decision.
“Masterpiece remains free to continue espousing its religious beliefs, including its opposition to same-sex marriage,” Judge Daniel M. Taubman wrote. “However, if it wishes to operate as a public accommodation and conduct business within the State of Colorado, [the law] prohibits it from picking and choosing customers based on their sexual orientation.”
The Trump administration filed a filed a brief on behalf of Phillips; supporters of the couple said it was the first time the government has argued for an exemption to an anti-discrimination law.
But the government agreed with Phillips that his cakes are a form of expression, and he cannot be compelled to use his talents for something in which he does not believe.
“Forcing Phillips to create expression for and participate in a ceremony that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs invades his First Amendment rights,” the government said.
It did not take a position on Phillips’ argument that complying with the law would violate the free exercise of his religion.
The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.