Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Brief Filed: 10/17
Court: U.S. Supreme Court
Year of Decision: 2018

Read full-text amicus briefopens in new window (PDF, 157KB)

Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create an expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

Sexual Orientation (Discrimination)

The owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Jack Phillips, refused to create a cake for a same-sex wedding. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that he had violated the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits denying to anyone “because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry...the full and equal enjoyment of the goods [and] services...of a place of public accommodation.” COLO. REV.STAT. § 24-34-01(2)(a). Phillips argues that compelling him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding requires him to engage in expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage in contravention of the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. Respondents counter by relying on the Supreme Court's earlier holding in Employment Division v. Smith, in which the court stated that it had “never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate.” Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 878–79 (1990). The lower federal courts have supported that view in the litigation between Masterpiece Cake and the state. Masterpiece Cake sought and obtained review by the Supreme Court.

APA’s brief draws upon our research to explain why discrimination based on sexual orientation is conduct that the State can and should regulate. Like the APA marriage equality briefs, APA advised the court of the literature showing that: (1) homosexuality is generally not chosen and is highly resistant to change; (2) discrimination against LGBT people is pervasive; and (3) explain the research on stigma and stereotyping. APA’s brief also focuses on explaining the basis and need for states enacting anti-discrimination provisions for LGBT people, which supports the Civil Rights Commission’s argument that the courts should not permit exemptions from these generally applicable anti-discrimination laws.

On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in a fact-driven decision, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not employ religious neutrality in its treatment of Mr. Phillips, violating the Masterpiece owners' rights to free exercise, and reversed the Commission's decision. The court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, free exercise of religion and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality. APA’s press release can be found online.