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 with more than 900 attorneys in major cities nationwide serving clients across a wide range of practices and industries. Having built its reputation on providing premier workplace law representation to management, the firm has grown to include leading practices in the areas of government relations, healthcare and sports law. For more information, visit www.jacksonlewis.com.

See AllRelated Articles You May Like

April 16, 2019

Indiana Court Declines to Expand At-Will Employment Exception

April 16, 2019

Reaffirming Indiana’s “strong” presumption of at-will employment, the Indiana Court of Appeals has declined to expand the public policy exception to the at-will employment doctrine to include an employee’s mistaken belief that he was subpoenaed to testify at an unemployment hearing. Perkins v. Memorial Hosp. of South Bend, No. 18A-CT-... Read More

April 2, 2019

Eleventh Circuit Clarifies Its ‘Similarly Situated’ Standard for Workplace Discrimination Claims

April 2, 2019

The proper standard for comparator evidence in cases alleging intentional discrimination is “similarly situated in all material aspects,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit has clarified in an en banc ruling. Lewis v. City of Union City, Ga., No. 15-11362, 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 8450 (11th Cir. Mar. 21, 2019). The... Read More

March 28, 2019

U.S. Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument on Agency-Deference Doctrine

March 28, 2019

Should courts defer to agency interpretations of their own regulations so long as the interpretations are reasonable, even if a court believes another reasonable reading of a regulation is the better reading? In Auer v. Robbins, 519 U.S. 452 (1997), and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410 (1945), the U.S. Supreme Court... Read More

Related Practices