CONSTITUTIONAL LAW - LET THEM EAT CAKE - MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. V. COLO. CIVIL RIGHTS COMM'N.

• Author: Rennie, Timothy

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's free exercise of religion. (1) The Fourteenth Amendment ensures no state shall deny someone equal protection under the law. (2) Flowing from these fundamental freedoms is an oft-deliberated balance between religious exemptions and antidiscrimination laws in cases involving sexual orientation. (3) In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, (4) the United States Supreme Court considered whether the Colorado Civil Rights Commission examined the state's possible religious hostility when adjudicating the case. (5) The Court held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not rule with the religious neutrality required by the Constitution. (6)

Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, offers a variety of baked goods including custom-designed cakes for events such as weddings and birthdays. (7) Jack Phillips, an expert baker who has owned and operated the cakeshop for over twenty-four years, is a devout Christian. (8) Due to Phillips's deeply-held religious beliefs, he claimed that making a wedding cake for a same-sex couple was a violation of his religious principles. (9) Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins, a gay couple, visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in the summer leading up to their wedding hoping to order a cake for their celebration. (10) Phillips explained to the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for same-sex couples because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage and further because Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time. (11) In September 2012, shortly after the couple's visit to Masterpiece Cakeshop, Craig and Mullins filed a discrimination complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop. (12)

The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and forbids the discriminatory practice of denying "public accommodation" to same-sex couples. (13) The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, an appellate body established by CADA to review matters of discrimination, conducted a formal hearing addressing the alleged discrimination of Craig and Mullins by Phillips. (14) At the hearing, Phillips argued that requiring him to make a cake for a same-sex couple would violate his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. (15) However, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ordered Phillips to "'cease and desist from discriminating against ... same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any product [the bakery] would sell to heterosexual couples.'" (16) Phillips appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals which affirmed the Commission's decision. (17) After the Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case, the Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari. (18)

The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment protects citizens' right to practice their religion free from masked or overt government hostility. (19) With respect to the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise of religion, the government cannot impose burdens that are hostile to a citizen's religious beliefs and cannot act in a manner that presumes the illegitimacy of a citizen's religious beliefs and practices. (20) While it is true that the religious activities of individuals are subject to regulation by the states in the exercise of their power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare of their citizens, it is also true that the states cannot deny religiously-grounded conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. (21)

Supreme Court decisions have established that gay persons and couples may not be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation and are considered a protected class of citizens. (22) While people with religious objections to a protected class are accommodated, these objections generally do not allow business owners to deny people equal access to goods and services. (23) Historically, the Supreme Court protects people from discrimination in the name of religious liberty, particularly discrimination of individuals in a protected class. (24)

At the time the events leading to this litigation unraveled, Colorado did not recognize the validity of same-sex marriages. (25) In the past, Colorado prohibited discrimination, including discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, in places of public accommodation. (26) Cases concerning discrimination are adjudicated under the CADA which is an administrative system tasked with resolving discrimination claims. (27) The administrative system is required to review all Free Exercise Clause cases with neutrality and absent of hostility towards citizens' religious beliefs. (28) In 2015, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission heard a series of cases involving complaints that alleged bakers discriminated against citizens by refusing to bake cakes depicting hostile messages aimed towards gay persons. (29) The Commission found that the bakers' ultimate refusal to bake cakes displaying hateful messages fell within the constitutional rights of the bakers. (30)

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, the Supreme Court concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to decide Phillips's case with the neutrality required when addressing Free Exercise Clause cases. (31) According to the Court, inappropriate and dismissive comments made by two commissioners during the hearing process indicated a lack of due consideration for Phillips's free exercise rights and the dilemma he faced...