Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018)
Phillips, the owner of a Colorado bakery, told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages (which Colorado did not then recognize) but that he would sell them other baked goods. The couple filed a charge under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public.” An ALJ ruled in the couple’s favor. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed. While Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. “To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs.” Before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages and before the Supreme Court addressed that issue, Phillips was not unreasonable in thinking his decision lawful. State law afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Phillips was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, acting inconsistently with its consideration of similar cases, showed impermissible hostility toward his sincere religious beliefs. A commissioner compared his religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust, without objection. The government cannot pass judgment upon or presuppose the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. The state’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality.
In showing selective hostility to a baker's sincerely-held beliefs as a basis for his objection to creating a cake for a same-sex couple, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the baker's right to exercise his religion.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission et al.
certiorari to the court of appeals of colorado
No. 16–111. Argued December 5, 2017—Decided June 4, 2018
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes. The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) pursuant to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits, as relevant here, discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services . . . to the public.” Under CADA’s administrative review system, the Colorado Civil Rights Division first found probable cause for a violation and referred the case to the Commission. The Commission then referred the case for a formal hearing before a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who ruled in the couple’s favor. In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion. Both the Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed.
Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. Pp. 9–18.
(a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U. S. 744, or Obergefell. Given the State’s position at the time, there is some force to Phillips’ argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 9–12.
(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at the Commission’s formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips’ faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.
Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips’ willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips’ concern that the State’s practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection. Pp. 12–16.
(c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution’s guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U. S. 520. Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality include “the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body.” Id., at 540. In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave “every appearance,” id., at 545, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative “evaluation of the particular justification” for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips’ conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips’ religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners’ comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission’s disparate consideration of Phillips’ case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. Pp. 16–18.
370 P. 3d 272, reversed.
Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined.
Record from the Court of Appeals of Colorado has been returned. |
JUDGMENT ISSUED. |
MANDATE ISSUED. |
Judgment REVERSED. Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Breyer, Alito, Kagan, and Gorsuch, JJ., joined. Kagan, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Breyer, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which Gorsuch, J., joined. Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined. |
Letter of notice regarding clarification of the record filed by respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission. |
Argued. For petitioners: Kristen K. Waggoner, Scottsdale, Ariz.; and Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For State respondent: Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General, Denver, Colo. For private respondents: David D. Cole, Washington, D. C. |
Reply of petitioners Masterpiece Cakeshop, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Joint motion for divided argument filed by respondents GRANTED. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument GRANTED. |
Brief amici curiae of American Psychological Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of OutServe-SLDN, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Ilan H. Meyer, PhD, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Floyd Abrams, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Colorado Organizations and Individuals filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Thirty-Seven Businesses and Organizations filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Main Street Alliance, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of National Women's Law Center and Other Groups filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Transgender Law Center, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of the General Synod of the United Church of Christ, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Motion of John Gunter, Jr., et al. for leave to intervene DENIED. |
Motion of Chris Sevier, et al. for leave to intervene DENIED. |
Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Scholars filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Center for Inquiry, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of GLBTQ Legal Advocates & Defenders, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Church-State Scholars filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Chefs, Bakers, and Restaurateurs filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Central Conference of American Rabbis, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Scholars of Behavioral Science and Economics filed. (Reprinted Copy Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Corporate Law Professors filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Tanenbaum Center for Interreligious Understanding filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Massachusetts, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of National League of Cities, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of County of Santa Clara, Cities of New York and Los Angeles, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of 15 Faith and Civil Rights Organizations filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Former Representative Tony Coelho, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of 211 Members of Congress filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Tobias B. Wolff filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Service Employees International Union filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Civil Rights Forum filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Public Accommodation Law Scholars filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of National LGBTQ Task Force, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Canadian Civil Liberties Association, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Freedom From Religion Foundation filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Services and Advocacy for Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual and Transgender Elders and American Society on Aging filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of American Unity Fund, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Scholars of the Constitutional Rights and Interests of Children filed. (Distributed) |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Legal Scholars in Support of Equality filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Freedom of Speech Scholars filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins filed. (Distributed) |
CIRCULATED |
Joint motion for divided argument filed by respondents. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT Tuesday, December 5, 2017 |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 10/27/2017. |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by John Gunter, Jr., et al. |
Motion for leave to intervene filed by Chris Sevier, et al. |
Brief amicus curiae of Christian Business Owners Supporting Religious Freedom filed. |
Brief amici curiae of 33 Family Policy Organizations filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Public Advocate of the United States, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of 34 Legal Scholars filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Richard Lawrence filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence and National Organization for Marriage filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Council for Christian Colleges and Universities (CCCU), et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of International Christian Photographers and Center for Arizona Policy filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Sherif Girgis filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Becket Fund for Religious Liberty filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Agudath Israel of America filed. |
Brief amici curiae of National Black Religious Broadcasters, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
Brief amici curiae of United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of William Jack and The National Center for Law and Policy filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Cake Artists in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Utah Republican State Senators filed. |
Brief amici curiae of C 12 Group, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Mark Regnerus, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Aaron and Melissa Klein filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Freedom X and Rabbi Dovid Bressman filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Concerned Women for America filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of CatholicVote.org filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Restoring Religious Freedom Project filed. |
Brief amici curiae of National Legal Foundation, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of David Boyle in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American College of Pediatricians, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of States of Texas, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of First Amendment Lawyers Association filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Christian Law Association filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Liberty Counsel filed. |
Brief amici curiae of 479 Creative Professionals filed. |
Brief amici curiae of United States Senators and Representatives filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Legal Scholar Adam J. MacLeod filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Institute for Justice in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Professors Christopher R. Green and David R. Upham filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs ("COLPA") filed on behalf of Orthodox Jewish Organizations filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Cato Institute, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Ryan T. Anderson, Ph.D., et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Rev. Patrick Mahoney, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Thomas More Society filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Law and Economics Scholars filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Independence Law Center filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Moral Law filed. |
Brief amici curiae of North Carolina Values Coalition and the Family Research Council filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Southeastern Legal Foundation, et al. filed. |
Brief of petitioners Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. filed. |
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) |
Brief amici curiae of Indiana Family Institute, Inc., et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Billy Graham Evangelistic Association, et al. filed. |
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission. |
Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs in support of either party, or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioners. |
The time to file the joint appendix and petitioners' brief on the merits is extended to and including August 31, 2017. |
The time to file respondents' briefs on the merits is extended to and including October 23, 2017. |
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Foundation For Moral Law GRANTED. |
Petition GRANTED. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 22, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 15, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 8, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of June 1, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 25, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 18, 2017. |
Letter of May 12, 2017, from counsel for petitioner received. (Distributed) |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of May 11, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 28, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 21, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of April 13, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 31, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 24, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 17, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of March 3, 2017. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 24, 2017. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 17, 2017. |
Record received from the Supreme Court of Colorado (1 box). |
Record Requested. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 13, 2017. |
Rescheduled. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of January 6, 2017. |
Reply of petitioners Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al. filed. |
Brief of respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission in opposition filed. |
Brief of respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins in opposition filed. |
Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 29, 2016, for all respondents. |
Response Requested. (Due September 30, 2016) |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of September 26, 2016. |
Waiver of right of respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins to respond filed. |
Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Foundation For Moral Law. |
Order extending time to file response to petition to and including September 23, 2016, for all respondents. |
Waiver of right of respondents Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al. to respond filed. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due August 24, 2016) |
Prior History
- Charlie Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, 2015 COA 115 (Colo. Ct. App. 2015)