Search form

Supreme Court Argument: Baker’s First Amendment Rights vs. Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Law

By Michelle E. Phillips, Paul Patten and John T. Cigno
  • December 6, 2017

The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in a case with potentially far-reaching implications for issues at the intersection of civil rights and religious freedoms on December 5, 2017. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, No. 16-111.

The Court will decide whether applying Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Law (CADA) to a baker who refused, based on his religious belief, to prepare and sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple violates the baker’s First Amendment rights.

CADA prohibits places of public accommodation from discriminating against individuals on the basis of certain protected characteristics, including sexual orientation.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Jack Phillips violated CADA when he refused to sell a cake to a same-sex couple for their wedding.

Kristen Waggoner, arguing for Phillips, did not make the broad claim that a business owner with a religious belief should be allowed to refuse services based on the same-sex status of customers. Instead, she argued that the Commission’s actions constituted “compelled speech,” a violation of the First Amendment. She explained that the objection was to the message expressed by the cake, as opposed to the people who requested it.

During oral argument, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan expressed concern over ruling in a way that would “undermine every civil rights law from the year [two].” Justice Sotomayor pointedly asked about whether speech espousing religious beliefs should trump public accommodation laws that prohibit discrimination on the basis of legally protected characteristics such as race. The Justices pressed Waggoner to distinguish between the baker’s position and that of a hypothetical individual who refused on religious grounds to bake a cake for an interracial wedding.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch expressed concern over respecting the sincerely held religious beliefs of individuals like Phillips, and potentially providing protection to a company for refusing services broader than the “compelled speech” doctrine advocated by Phillips. Chief Justice Roberts repeatedly returned to a hypothetical indicating his sympathy for a company with strongly held religious beliefs seeking to refuse services to a same-sex married couple.

As was the case with the Court’s landmark 2015 Obergefell v. Hodges ruling (which effectively legalized same-sex marriage), Justice Anthony Kennedy’s vote likely will decide the outcome of this case. Initially, Justice Kennedy appeared sympathetic to the same-sex couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins. He asked U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco, representing the U.S. in opposing CADA, whether a ruling invalidating CADA would allow “a baker [to] put a sign in his window, we do not bake cakes for gay weddings.” Francisco replied that it would. Justice Kennedy then questioned whether that would be “an affront to the gay community.”

As the argument progressed, Justice Kennedy appeared to shift his concerns to whether the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s initial ruling demonstrated an anti-religious bias. He pointed to the Commissioner’s statement that “freedom of religion used to justify discrimination is a despicable piece of rhetoric[,]” as evidence of such bias. He also said the state’s position is “neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips’ religious beliefs.” Ultimately, Justice Kennedy echoed the concerns of other Justices for striking an appropriate balance between freedom of religion and freedom from discrimination.

The Court’s decision may have far-reaching implications for the application of civil rights laws for those who seek to avoid those laws on the grounds of religious belief.

Jackson Lewis will provide updates on this case and other Supreme Court cases. Please contact the Jackson Lewis attorney with whom you regularly work with questions about this case or any federal and state employment laws prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.

©2017 Jackson Lewis P.C. This material is provided for informational purposes only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice nor does it create a client-lawyer relationship between Jackson Lewis and any recipient. Recipients should consult with counsel before taking any actions based on the information contained within this material. This material may be considered attorney advertising in some jurisdictions. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

Reproduction of this material in whole or in part is prohibited without the express prior written consent of Jackson Lewis P.C., a law firm that built its reputation on providing workplace law representation to management. Founded in 1958, the firm has grown to more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries including government relations, healthcare and sports law. More information about Jackson Lewis can be found at www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

August 22, 2019

Illinois Expands State Human Rights Act to Include Employers with One or More Employees

August 22, 2019

An amendment to the Illinois Human Rights Act (IHRA) expands the definition of “employer” from employers with at least 15 employees to those with one or more employees. The legislation, House Bill 252, was signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker on August 21, 2019, and enacted as Illinois Public Act 101-0430. The new law will become... Read More

August 13, 2019

New York Expands Harassment Laws, Protections of Religious Attire, Clothing, or Facial Hair

August 13, 2019

New York state has enacted sweeping new workplace harassment protections for employees, including lowering the standard for when harassment is actionable. It also has adopted new law prohibiting employment discrimination based on religious attire, clothing, or facial hair. Workplace Sexual Harassment On August 12, 2019, Governor... Read More

August 12, 2019

Illinois Enacts Workplace Harassment Law, Creating New and Expanded Obligations for Employers

August 12, 2019

Employers in Illinois will have new obligations related to employment contracts, training, and agency oversight under a wide-ranging bill signed by Governor J.B. Pritzker on August 9, 2019, that is intended to combat workplace harassment and provide greater protections for employees. Senate Bill 75 unanimously passed both houses of... Read More

Related Practices