So the recent Supreme Court decision in the case against a Colorado baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same sex couple has been in the news.
What does it all mean?
A quick background on the case. In 2012, Colorado baker Jack Phillips owner of MasterPiece Cakeshop, Ltd., refused to make a wedding cake for same sex couple David Mullins and Charlie Craig based on his religious beliefs. Colorado had a state statute that barred businesses from refusing service based on race, sex, marital status or sexual orientation.[i] At that time Colorado did not recognized same sex marriages, but Mullins and Craig planned to get married in Massachusetts, which did, and then celebrate in Colorado with friends and family.
Mullins and Craig brought a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Administrative Law Judge Robert N. Spencer held that Phillips had violated the state statute. That decision was affirmed by the Commission.[ii]
The case was appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals which upheld the Commission’s decision.[iii]
And so the cased made it to the United States Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held for Phillips in a very narrow decision. [iv]
The public reaction to the decision would make it out that this matter is decided and that businesses are free to discriminate against LGBT people, but that is not what the decision says at all.
The decision was made on a basis that did not go the real question of whether such discrimination was permitted.
The court split in 5 ways. Justice Kennedy wrote the decision, joined by Justices Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan and Gorsuch. Justices Kagen and Breyer concurred in their own opinion, Justices Gorsuch and Alito concurred in their own opinion, Justices Thomas and Gorsuch concurred in their own opinion and Justices Ginsburgh and Sotomayor dissented.
To sum it up, the court decided that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission acted with prejudice against Phillips from the beginning and he was not given a fair hearing and that the Commission was hostile to religion due to the remarks of one of its members.
One of the members of the commission stated that “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.” Justice Kennedy wrote that “this sentiment is inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law.”
The decision held that the Commission did not consider the matter with due consideration of Phillips’ First Amendment rights. It not rule on those first amendment rights.
Of course this leaves the big question unanswered. The conflict between religious freedoms and other non-discrimination rights. When truly held religious beliefs allow discrimination against a class that we as a society have determined deserve protection, which rights prevail.
It is a deep question and one the Supreme Court has refused to answer at this time.
[i] Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), §§ 24-34-301 to -804, C.R.S. 2014
[ii] https://le-gal.org/colorado-wedding-cake-case-advances-next-stage-commission-affirms-alj-ruling/
[iii] http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/08/16-111-op-bel-colo-app.pdf
[iv] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new_d1of.pdf
The author[s] is solely responsible for this blog submission. It does not represent the position of the New York State Bar Association or its Committee.