Court Case

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

At Issue: Does a commercial baker have the right to refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple in a state that includes sexual orientation as a protected category in its civil rights laws?

BJC Says: No, the baker’s religious beliefs do not provide a blanket exemption to state laws that protect against discrimination in a place of business.

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Case Status

The Supreme Court sidestepped the central question in its June 4, 2018, ruling against the state of Colorado, saying the commission had not enforced the law properly.

Religious liberty does not mean that religious beliefs provide blanket exemptions to laws that protect our neighbors. BJC filed a brief on behalf of the state of Colorado, explaining that a commercial baker should not be able to refuse service to a same-sex couple based on his religious beliefs, since state laws prohibit discrimination in the marketplace.

Laws like Colorado’s — which covers discrimination against “disability, race, [religion], color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry” — protect religious liberty. Granting an exemption for this baker would open the door for other business owners to refuse to serve other customers because of the religious clothing they wear or religious beliefs they profess. The Constitution does not require an exemption from such laws designed to prevent discrimination in the commercial marketplace for a baker who sells wedding cakes to the public but opposes same-sex marriage.

On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, finding that actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause. The decision sidestepped the core question of whether the business owner’s refusal to provide a service violated the law. Instead, the Court’s decision was based on the actions of the state administrative body charged with enforcing the law.

Resources

  • Podcast

    An Analysis of the Case and BJCs Brief

    Holly Hollman and Amanda Tyler discuss the high-profile Masterpiece Cakeshop case and the BJC’s brief in this podcast.

    Listen to the Podcast

  • The Brief

    BJCs Amicus Brief

    Read BJCs friend of the court brief.

    The Brief

  • Legal

    The Supreme Court's Masterpiece Ruling

    Read the full Supreme Court ruling issued in Masterpiece.

    Read the Ruling

Read Our Statement After the Ruling

BJC: Supreme Court avoids addressing core question in Masterpiece decision

Jun 4, 2018

Hollman: Religious liberty does not mean that religious beliefs provide blanket exemptions to nondiscrimination laws that protect our neighbors

For Immediate Release: June 4, 2018
WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, finding that actions of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause.

The following statement is from Holly Hollman, general counsel of the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty:

“Rather than determining whether the business owner’s refusal to provide a service violated the law, the Court decided today’s case based on the actions of the administrative body charged with enforcing the law.

Religious liberty protects beliefs and actions related to marriage. It does not mean that religious beliefs provide blanket exemptions to nondiscrimination laws that protect our neighbors. Religious objectors, like all Americans, have the right to be treated with respect and not to have their religious beliefs denigrated.

As we consider these difficult issues in future cases, we all will fare better when we acknowledge the legitimate interests on both sides of these disputes and approach each other with civility and respect.”

—

The Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty filed a brief in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on behalf of the state of Colorado, explaining that a commercial bakery should not be able to refuse service to a same-sex couple based on the baker’s sincerely held religious belief about marriage. The brief explains how nondiscrimination laws like Colorado’s protect religious liberty in the commercial marketplace. It is available at BJConline.org/Masterpiece

The United Church of Christ, the presiding bishop of the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America and Chicago Theological Seminary also joined the brief.

###

Based in Washington, D.C., the Baptist Joint Committee for Religious Liberty is an 82-year-old religiously based organization working to defend religious freedom for all people and protect the institutional separation of church and state in the historic Baptist tradition.

Quotes From BJC's Amicus Brief
  • “Public accommodations laws like Colorado’s generally promote religious liberty, by protecting individuals from discrimination on account of their religion. Such laws also promote human dignity, which is itself a religious value, by ensuring that all individuals can access the commercial marketplace on an equal basis. By advancing these compelling interests, public accommodations laws like Colorado’s protect the pluralism that is so vital to American society.”
  • “Respecting petitioners’ interest in their sincerely-held religious views regarding marriage does not require granting them the right to deny service in the commercial marketplace to couples in connection with the civil, or non-religious aspects of their marriages. Upholding petitioners’ claim on these facts would come at too great a cost to the state’s compelling interest in ensuring the ability of each citizen to participate in the commercial marketplace.”
  • “Petitioners’ claim that they are being forced to participate in something they view as religious is not limited in any meaningful way. Upholding that claim would invite a variety of religious exemptions that would fundamentally change expectations of equality in the commercial sphere. The rule petitioners seek to establish would subject any member of the public to the possibility that they might be denied service, at any time, without warning.”
  • “Ultimately, religious liberty itself would suffer if petitioners’ arguments were adopted. Like most public accommodations laws, CADA [Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act] prevents commercial discrimination on account of religion….If even the commercial act of selling a cake for a reception far removed from any religious ceremony qualifies for a religious exemption from CADA, then it is easy to foresee that many religious objections to serving a customer based on the customer’s ‘religious beliefs, observances, or practices’ would also have to be exempted. In the end, religious minorities would lose much of the protection that CADA affords them.”