Baker Who Refused to Make a Gay Wedding Cake Sues Again Over a Gender Transition Cake | Time

United states Supreme Court case

Masterpiece Cakeshop 5. Colorado Civil Rights Committee
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 5, 2017 Decided June iv, 2018
Full case name	Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission, et al.
Docket no.	xvi-111
Citations	584 U.S. ___ (2018) (more) 138 S. Ct. 1719; 201 L. Ed. 2nd 35
Case history
Prior	Judgment for plaintiff, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 2022 COA 115, 370 P.3d 272 (2015); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2290 (2017).
Holding
By failing to deed in a manner neutral to religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Start Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Court membership
Primary Justice John Roberts Associate Justices Anthony Kennedy· Clarence Thomas Ruth Bader Ginsburg· Stephen Breyer Samuel Alito· Sonia Sotomayor Elena Kagan· Neil Gorsuch
Case opinions
Majority	Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch
Concurrence	Kagan, joined by Breyer
Concurrence	Gorsuch, joined past Alito
Concurrence	Thomas (in role), joined by Gorsuch
Dissent	Ginsburg, joined past Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. amend. I

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission , 584 U.South. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United states of america that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations tin can refuse certain services based on the Offset Amendment claims of free speech and costless exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in item, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple, on the basis of the possessor'southward religious beliefs.

The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a baker in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on the possessor's religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the case nether the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Deed, institute that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Following appeals within the country that affirmed the Commission's decision, the bakery took the example to the U.S. Supreme Courtroom.

In a seven–2 conclusion, the Courtroom ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not utilise religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips'south rights to free exercise, and reversed the Committee's decision. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, costless do of religion, and freedom of spoken communication, due to the complications of the Committee'southward lack of religious neutrality.

Procedural history [edit]

Facts of the case [edit]

Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado

In 2012, aforementioned-sex couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex wedlock in Colorado, though by 2022 the country had allowed same-sexual activity marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples accept the primal correct to marry in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S. 644 (2015).^[ane]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to lodge a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other broiled appurtenances in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding ceremony cake.^{[2] : 2} The following day, Craig's female parent, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did not make hymeneals cakes for the weddings of gay couples^{[two] : ii} because of his religious beliefs and considering Colorado did not recognize same-sexual practice marriage at the fourth dimension.^{[3] [2] : one–ii}

Colorado Civil Rights Committee [edit]

While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission nether the country'south public accommodations constabulary, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating confronting their customers on the ground of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.^{[4] [3]} Colorado is one of xx-one U.Due south. states that include sexual orientation as a protected class in their anti-bigotry laws.^[v] Craig and Mullins's complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig 5. Masterpiece Cakeshop.^[six] The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake shop was ordered non only to provide cakes to same-sexual activity marriages, merely to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff grooming' regarding public accommodations discrimination, and provide quarterly reports for the next two years regarding steps it has taken to come into compliance and whether it has turned away any prospective customers".^{[7] [8]}

Colorado Courtroom of Appeals [edit]

Masterpiece appealed the decision to the Courtroom of Appeals with the aid of Brotherhood Defending Freedom, and refused to comply with the land'southward orders, instead opting to remove themselves from the nuptials cake business;^[four] Phillips claimed that this decision cost him 40% of his business concern.^[9] Alongside the Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission, the American Civil Liberties Union represented Craig and Mullins during the appeals.^[iii] The state's determination was upheld on the grounds that despite the nature of creating a custom block, the act of making the block was office of the expected deport of Phillips'south business, and not an expression of gratuitous speech nor free do of faith.^{[4] [10]} The court distinguished its decision in Craig from another example, brought to the Commission by William Jack, in which three bakeries refused to create a cake for William Jack with the bulletin "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22",^{[two] : 21 [ original research? ]} citing that in the latter, the bakeries had made other cakes for Christian customers and declined that club based on the offensive message rather than the customers' creed, whereas Masterpiece Cakeshop's refusal to provide Craig and Mullins with a wedding cake "was because of its opposition to same sexual activity spousal relationship which...is tantamount to discrimination on the footing of sexual orientation".^{[2] : 21 [ original inquiry? ]}

The Supreme Court of Colorado declined to hear an appeal.^{[ten] : 3 [ original research? ]}

Before the Supreme Courtroom [edit]

Petition for writ of certiorari [edit]

Masterpiece Cakeshop petitioned the U.South. Supreme Court for certiorari (review), nether the case proper name Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission, of the following question:^[11]

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

Both the Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged the Supreme Courtroom to reject the entreatment, fearing that a Court conclusion in favor of the business organization would create a "gaping hole" in civil rights laws on the basis of religion.^[4] The concluding briefs at the certiorari stage were received in December 2016.^{[11] [ original research? ]} The Court agreed to hear the case in the 2022 term^[12] and oral arguments were heard on Dec v, 2017.^[13]

In further filings, Masterpiece requested that the Colorado anti-discrimination law be reviewed by the Supreme Court under strict scrutiny. He further identified that while the state'due south police is to assure that same-sexual activity couples had access to the same services equally heterosexual couples, the police force goes too far in its enforcement, since Craig and Mullins were easily able to obtain a wedding cake from a different vendor in the state.^[14] Masterpiece further believed the anti-discrimination law can be used to selectively discriminate against religion, as the Committee has immune bakers to decline to provide cakes with anti-aforementioned-sex marriage messages on them, even though the Commission said these refusals were appropriate due to the offensiveness of the messages and not on the basis of religion.^[14] The State and the ACLU countered these points, stating the law was aimed but at conduct of a concern, not their speech, and in cases similar a wedding block, "[no] reasonable observer would empathize the Visitor's provision of a cake to a gay couple every bit an expression of its approval of the customer'south marriage".^[14] They farther argued that the cakeshop could provide catchall language to explain that any services they provide do not endorse whatsoever expressions of gratis spoken language associated with information technology, an allowance within the anti-discrimination law.^[14]

Amicus briefs [edit]

Around 100 legal briefs were filed by 3rd parties, roughly equally split in supporting either side of the instance.^[13] Many civil rights organizations filed briefs in back up of Craig and Mullins, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund,^[15] the Lawyers' Committee for Ceremonious Rights Under Law, Southern Poverty Constabulary Heart,^[16] the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Ceremonious Rights and Urban Affairs,^[17] and the Civil Rights Forum, a group of plaintiff-side civil rights attorneys.^[18] The National Women's Law Center argued in its amicus brief that merely as the Court compared the furnishings of race and sexual bigotry in Roberts 5. U.S. Jaycees, it should compare those harms to those created by sexual-orientation discrimination in this case.^[xix]

Among those supporting Phillips included the United states of america Department of Justice under the Trump administration.^{[20] [5]} While the Section asserts that anti-discrimination laws are necessary to prevent businesses that provide goods and services from discriminating, these laws cannot be used to compel a business into expressing speech they practice not agree with, nor used to provide appurtenances and services with such expressions without the ability for the business to assert they do not agree with those expressions.^[xiv] The brief was criticized past several organizations, including those that support LGBT rights, claiming the brief as a pattern of hostile actions by the Trump administration and fearing that a decision in favor of Masterpiece would enable such businesses to take a "license to discriminate".^{[twenty] [21]}

Oral arguments [edit]

	Recording of oral arguments earlier the Supreme Courtroom.
Problems playing this file? See media help.

Oral arguments for the plaintiffs were provided past Kristen Waggoner for the Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Phillips, and the Solicitor General of the United States Noel Francisco, presenting the federal government's case every bit amicus curiae in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop. The defendants' arguments were given by Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger, on behalf of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and David D. Cole of the ACLU, on behalf of Craig and Mullins. Questions asked by the Justices attempted to determine where the bounds of a cake baker'southward rights and the rights of those soliciting his services would extend by considering several hypothetical situations involving the making of and selling custom cakes, including situations related to racial and gender-preference discrimination.^[22]

Experts believed the Supreme Courtroom's opinions in the instance would be divided, with the ultimate determination falling on the opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has historically been a swing vote in his term. In his past instance history, he has been a stiff supporter of gay rights (having authored all of the landmark gay rights rulings by the Supreme Court: Romer 5. Evans in 1996, Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, Usa five. Windsor in 2013, and Obergefell five. Hodges in 2015), and a corporation's freedom of oral communication in his majority opinion for Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and freedom of religion through his concurrence with the majority in Burwell five. Hobby Vestibule Stores, Inc. 573 U.Due south. ___ (2014).^{[v] [23] [24] [25] [26]}

Opinion of the Court [edit]

Majority stance [edit]

The Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, ordering a reversal of the decision made past the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The bulk stance was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Master Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. The stance stated that although a bakery, in his capacity every bit the owner of a concern serving the public, "might have his right to the gratis exercise of his religion limited by more often than not applicative laws", a Country conclusion in an arbitrament "in which religious hostility on the part of the Country itself" is a gene violating the "State's obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Exercise Clause of the Starting time Subpoena to the Constitution.^{[27] [ original research? ]} Kennedy's opinion stated that the Commission's review of Phillips's instance exhibited hostility towards his religious views. The Committee compared Phillips'southward religious behavior to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado'south anti-discrimination police".^[28] Kennedy's opinion also cited the three exemptions the commission previously granted for the non-discrimination law arising from the William Jack complaints. The opinion also noted differences in treatment previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious conventionalities, rather than maintaining neutrality.^[29] Kennedy'south stance noted that he may have been inclined to dominion in favor of the Committee if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.^[30]

Concurring opinions [edit]

Justice Kagan wrote a concurring stance, joined past Breyer, taking item discover of the narrow grounds of the ruling.^[31] Justice Gorsuch too wrote a concurring opinion, joined by Alito. Both Kagan's and Gorsuch's concurrences considered how the Committee handled Masterpiece differently than prior exemption requests. Both agreed that the Committee exhibited hostility towards Phillips's religious beliefs and concurred with the reversal. Kagan cited equally significant differences betwixt prior Commission exemptions and the instant case. She posited the Commission could have ruled differently in the two situations if they had stayed religiously neutral. Gorsuch indicated the Commission should maintain consistency amidst like cases.^[32]

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote another opinion, concurring in part and concurring in judgment, joined past Gorsuch. Thomas found that the bulk opinion did not consider the free speech, free exercise or the anti-discrimination implications of the case, despite pregnant attention during oral arguments.^{[33] [34]} Thomas opined support for Masterpiece, both on grounds of free spoken language and free exercise.^[35]

Dissenting opinions [edit]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Ginsburg believed that the Committee acted fairly in evaluating the case, saying "what critically differentiates them is the function the customer'due south 'statutorily protected trait,' played in the denial of service".^{[36] [ original research? ]}

Analysis [edit]

The Court avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to costless exercise.^[37] Instead the court addressed both sides. Country actors like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on the 1 hand must ensure neutral and respectful consideration of claims for religious exemptions from anti-bigotry laws which are made past people who exercise their First Amendment right to gratis exercise of religion.^{[38] [34]} Nonetheless, this exemption won't utilize broadly in the hereafter because futurity disputes like the one in Masterpiece "must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open marketplace".^[39] The Supreme Court as well specifically made it clear, on the other hand, that gay Americans are also entitled to stiff defence force rights.^[39] Justice Kennedy wrote: "[t]he Offset Subpoena ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and then central to their lives and faiths. Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, information technology is a general dominion that such objections practice not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in lodge to deny protected persons equal access to appurtenances and services under a neutral and mostly applicable public accommodations constabulary."^[forty]

Kennedy'south decision specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made by the Committee as their reason to contrary the ruling, but considering of the being of this hostility in the current example, they could not rule on the broader issue regarding anti-bigotry constabulary and the free exercise of faith. Kennedy stated that "[t]he result of cases like this in other circumstances must wait farther elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market".^{[41] [42]} Kennedy'due south decision affirmed that there remains protection of aforementioned-sex activity couples and gay rights which states can still enforce through anti-discrimination laws, a indicate also agreed to past Ginsburg's dissent.^[34] The general constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws to prevent discrimination against sexual orientation affirmed by the Masterpiece decision was reflected in lower courts that same calendar week, in a case decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Brush & Beak Studio five. Phoenix,^[43] which upheld the urban center of Phoenix'southward anti-bigotry ordinance that included sexual orientation. The Court of Appeals extensively quoted Masterpiece in affirming the Arizona Superior Court's prior decision.^{[44] [45] [46]}

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Masterpiece, supported the Courtroom'due south decision in finding that condemned the Commission's review of Phillips's case, stating that "Tolerance and respect for practiced-religion differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours".^[34] The American Civil Liberties Union welcomed the role of the decision affirming protection of gay rights, stating that the Court "reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the market, including against L.Thousand.B.T. people".^[34] The decision was also welcomed by the NAACP Legal Defence force and Educational Fund. Sherrilyn Ifill, LDF's President and Managing director-Counsel, stated: "The narrow ruling [...] is based on the universal principle that constitutional claims must be heard in every example before a neutral tribunal. More important was the affirmation of eight Justices that discrimination in public accommodations enjoys no First Amendment protection. This principle has long been an essential slice of the ceremonious rights movement and established anti-discrimination law. This is particularly important today, in 2018, when people of color are still experiencing persistent and widespread bigotry while they store, eat, or access other public spaces."^[xl]

Another predominate case involving anti-bigotry laws and religious liberty that was in the court organization during Masterpiece was the Arlene'southward Flowers lawsuit in Washington, with the result over blossom arrangements being provided for a same-sex activity wedding. Prior to the decision in Masterpiece, a petition for writ of certiorari had been issued to the Supreme Court. Following the conclusion of Masterpiece, the blossom shop owner used that decision to assert that they were shown similar religious hostility, and requested their case to exist reheard. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Courtroom dismissed the awaiting petition, and ordered that lower courts review the blossom store'south case in a similar light as Masterpiece.^[47] On review at the Washington State Supreme Court, the court ruled against Arlene's Flowers in June 2022 that there was no evidence of religious animus.^{[48] [49]} Similarly, a case from Oregon, Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, had reached the Oregon Supreme Court before the Supreme Court heard Masterpiece. The Oregon Supreme Courtroom declined to overturn an anti-discrimination ruling made confronting a bakery by the Oregon Court of Appeals, with the baker petitioning the federal Supreme Court to hear the example. In June 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and in a summary judgement, vacated the Appeals Courtroom ruling and required the case be heard again in calorie-free of the decision on Masterpiece.

Masterpiece 'south basis of evaluating statements of public officials to decide if there was religious hostility in evaluating cases arose in Justice Sotomayor's dissent in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), which dealt with President Trump's travel ban confronting several nations which had a high Muslim population. While the majority ruled that the ban was within the President's powers and sent the instance back to lower courts to rule on other matters, Sotomayor believed that the decision of Masterpiece should have been used to judge President Trump and his administration'south statements that she believed showed hostility towards Muslims and would take non justified the ban.^[l]

Subsequent events [edit]

Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar instance in 2018, stemming from an incident in June 2017. The baker refused to bake Autumn Scardina, a Colorado lawyer, a block to gloat her altogether, which would have had a pink interior and blue exterior. Phillips stated after that he refused to bake such a cake based on his Christian beliefs that a person does not get to choose their gender. Scardina complained to the Colorado Division of Ceremonious Rights, which found in June 2022 sufficient evidence that the baker discriminated against her transgender condition, and ordered the parties into compulsory mediation. Phillips subsequently filed a lawsuit against the state in August 2022 to seek a permanent injunction to forbid the land from enforcing its anti-discrimination laws against him besides every bit punitive damages. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, who is named as a defendant in the suit, expects that the example will crave the Supreme Court to revisit its decision from Masterpiece, as the previous ruling "did not address the basic issue" of religious liberty.^{[51] [52] [53]} A federal judge refused to dismiss Phillip's arrange in January 2019, though did concord to remove Hickenlooper from the conform due to him no longer being governor.^[54]

In March 2019, the adjust and countersuit between Phillips and the country were dropped, with the country believing that while the core effect on the intersection of bigotry confronting sexual orientation or gender identity and religious beliefs of service business remains in question, the specific example around Scardina was not the proper vehicle to reply those questions. The agreement immune Scardina, should she want, to pursue her own civil activeness confronting Masterpiece.^[55] In June 2019, Scardina, represented by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh, brought civil suit against Phillips in federal commune court on the perceived discrimination. Greisen stated they felt the state did non represent Scardina's case well, thus taking activity directly.^[56] Scardina brought a second lawsuit against Phillips in April 2020, waiting past the appeal deadline to file in a unlike courtroom, for more than $100,000 in damages, fines, and chaser's fees.^[57] On June 15, 2021, Denver Commune Gauge A. Bruce Jones ruled that Phillips had violated Colorado's anti-discrimination constabulary by refusing to broil a block for Scardina and ordered him to pay a fine of $500. On June xvi, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the group representing Phillips, said information technology would appeal the ruling.^[58]

The Supreme Court granted certification to 303 Artistic LLC five. Elenis in February 2022, which once again dealt with Colorado's anti-discrimination laws as they apply to public businesses. The instance concerns a Christian spider web designer who seeks to make wedding announcement websites for heterosexual couples merely. She fears punishment under Colorado's anti-bigotry law and thus aims to block the constabulary equally a violation of her First Subpoena rights.^[59]

See too [edit]

• Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others, a similar case from the UK
• Listing of United States Supreme Court cases by the Roberts Court
• 2017 term opinions of the Supreme Court of the U.s.a.

References [edit]

1. ^ Barnes, Robert (June 26, 2017). "Supreme Courtroom to take case on bakery who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple". The Washington Post . Retrieved June 26, 2017.
2. ^ ^{a b c d eastward} Craig v. Masterpiece Block Shop et al., No. 14CA1351 (Colo. Ct. of App. Baronial 13, 2015)
3. ^ ^{a b c} Parloff, Roger (March six, 2017). "Christian Bakers, Gay Weddings, and a Question for the Supreme Court". The New Yorker . Retrieved June 27, 2017.
4. ^ ^{a b c d} Savage, David (June 26, 2017). "Supreme Court will hear example of Colorado baker who refused to make wedding block for same-sex activity couple". The Los Angeles Times . Retrieved June 26, 2017.
5. ^ ^{a b c} Savage, David (September 12, 2017). "Colorado block maker asks Supreme Court to provide a religious liberty right to turn down gay couple". The Los Angeles Times . Retrieved September 14, 2017.
6. ^ "Colo. judge orders Christian bakery to bake gay nuptials block. Volition he say no?". Christian Scientific discipline Monitor. December seven, 2013. Retrieved June 6, 2015.
7. ^ "Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop". August thirteen, 2015.
8. ^ "Craig and Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop - Commisson's Final Gild". June two, 2014.
9. ^ Roberts, Roxanne (Nov 30, 2017). "Hymeneals cakes can be stunning creations. Just do they qualify as art?". The Washington Mail . Retrieved December i, 2017.
10. ^ ^{a b c} "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF) . Retrieved sixteen Apr 2017.
11. ^ ^{a b} "Docket for case No. 16-111". Supreme Court of the Usa . Retrieved xvi April 2017.
12. ^ de Vogue, Ariane; Diaz, Daniella (June 25, 2017). "Supreme Court agrees to hear religious liberty case adjacent term". CNN . Retrieved June 25, 2017.
13. ^ ^{a b} Wolf, Richard (Nov 2, 2017). "Free speech communication 5. same-sex matrimony case floods loftier court". USA Today . Retrieved November 14, 2017.
14. ^ ^{a b c d e} Howe, Amy (September 11, 2017). "Wedding ceremony cakes v. religious beliefs?: In Plain English". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved September xiv, 2017.
15. ^ "Cursory of Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund in Support of Respondents" (PDF). October 30, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
16. ^ "Cursory amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Ceremonious Rights Nether Law, et al" (PDF). Oct 30, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
17. ^ "Brief of Amicus Curiae Washington Lawyers' Committee for Ceremonious Rights and Urban Affairs, Public Involvement Law Center, Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and Mississippi Heart for Justice in Back up of Respondents" (PDF). Oct xxx, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
18. ^ "Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Ceremonious Rights Forum in Support of Respondents" (PDF). Oct 30, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
19. ^ McClain, Linda C. (2019). ""'Male Chauvinism' Is Under Attack From All Sides at Present": Roberts v. United States Jaycees, Sexual activity Bigotry, and the First Amendment". Fordham Law Review. 87: 2392. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
20. ^ ^{a b} S.K. (September viii, 2017). "The Department of Justice backs a baker who refused to make a gay nuptials cake". The Economist . Retrieved 12 September 2017.
21. ^ Moreau, Julie (September 11, 2017). "Department of Justice's Gay Rights Brief Slammed past Advocates equally 'License to Discriminate'". NBCNews . Retrieved September 11, 2017.
22. ^ "Live Coverage: Supreme Court Hears Aforementioned-Sex Wedding ceremony Cake Example". The Wall Street Journal. December 5, 2017. Retrieved December 5, 2017.
23. ^ Liptak, Adam (September 16, 2017). "Cake Is His 'Art.' So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple?". The New York Times . Retrieved September 18, 2017.
24. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (September 27, 2017). "No affair how yous slice it, U.S. jurist Kennedy key vote in cake instance". Reuters. Retrieved September 27, 2017.
25. ^ Howe, Amy (vii December 2017). "Argument analysis: Conservative majority leaning toward ruling for Colorado baker (UPDATED)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 7 Dec 2017. With Kennedy seemingly holding the primal vote, the couple and their supporters at first seemed to take reason to exist optimistic.
26. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (September 27, 2017). "No affair how y'all slice it, U.S. jurist Kennedy key vote in cake example". Reuters. Retrieved February 7, 2018.
27. ^ Skid op., pp. 2-3, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Ceremonious Rights Committee, example no. 16-111, U.South. Supreme Court (June 4, 2018).
28. ^ Pavich, Katie (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Courtroom Overwhelmingly Rules in Favor of Colorado Bakery in Nuptials Cake Case". Townhall . Retrieved June four, 2018.
29. ^ Volokh, Eugene (June 4, 2018). "The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Leaves Near All the Large Questions Unresolved". Reason . Retrieved June iv, 2018.
30. ^ Rubin, Jennifer (June iv, 2018). "In baker's case, neither side has much reason to rejoice". The Washington Mail . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
31. ^ Sherman, Mark (June iv, 2018). "Supreme Courtroom rules in favor of Colorado bakery who wouldn't brand same-sex wedding cake". chicagotribune.com . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
32. ^ Sheppard, Ilya (June 4, 2018). "Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling Tastes Expert, But Is Empty Calories". The Cato Institute . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
33. ^ Epps, Garrett (June 4, 2018). "Justice Kennedy's Masterpiece Ruling". The Atlantic . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
34. ^ ^{a b c d due east} Liptak, Adam (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May xiii, 2020. Retrieved June 4, 2018.
35. ^ Whelan, Ed (June 4, 2018). "Masterpiece Cakeshop Victory". National Review . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
36. ^ Slip op., pp. 2-3, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, instance no. xvi-111, U.S. Supreme Court (June 4, 2018)
37. ^ Liptak, Adam (June iv, 2018). "Supreme Courtroom Sides With Baker Who Turned Abroad Gay Couple". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 4, 2018.
38. ^ Professor of constitutional law at the University of Baltimore Garrett Epps. "Ideas: Justice Kennedy's Masterpiece Ruling". The Atlantic. The Atlantic. Archived from the original on April 9, 2020. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
39. ^ ^{a b} Heather Timmons Ephrat Livni Past Heather Timmons & Ephrat Livni (June iv, 2018). "Masterpiece: The Supreme Courtroom's Colorado baker decision contains a robust defense of gay rights". Quartz. Quartz. Archived from the original on June iv, 2018. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
40. ^ ^{a b} "Supreme Court Reaffirms Core Anti-Discrimination Principles in Masterpiece Cakeshop Case". NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. NAACP Legal Defence and Educational Fund. June four, 2018. Archived from the original on September 14, 2018.
41. ^ "Supreme Courtroom rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake". Reuters. June 4, 2018. Retrieved June iv, 2018 – via CBS News.
42. ^ Barnes, Robert (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Courtroom rules in favor of bakery who would non make wedding ceremony cake for gay couple". The Washington Post . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
43. ^ Brush & Beak Studio 5. Phoenix , No. i CA-CV 16-0602 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 7, 2018).
44. ^ Johnson, Chris (June vii, 2018). "Courtroom Applies Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling to Uphold Ariz. LGBT Ordinance". Washington Blade . Retrieved June ix, 2018.
45. ^ Band, Trudy (June 8, 2018). "Arizona Courtroom Uses Cakeshop Instance to Affirm LGBT Rights". The Advocate . Retrieved June ix, 2018.
46. ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (June 7, 2018). "Making Sense of Masterpiece Cakeshop". Slate . Retrieved June 9, 2018.
47. ^ Wolf, Richard (June 25, 2018). "First cake, at present flowers: Supreme Court gives florist who refused to serve gay wedding a new hearing". USA Today . Retrieved June 25, 2018.
48. ^ Gutman, David (six June 2019). "Washington Supreme Court rules once more against Richland florist who refused flowers for gay nuptials". The Seattle Times . Retrieved 6 June 2019.
49. ^ Land v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc. , __ P.3d __ (Wash. 2019).
50. ^ Hurd, Hilary; Schwartz, Yishai (June 26, 2018). "The Supreme Courtroom Travel Ban Ruling: A Summary". Lawfare . Retrieved June 28, 2018.
51. ^ Garcia, Nic; Mitchell, Kirk (August 15, 2018). "Masterpiece Cakeshop owner sues Hickenlooper, claiming religious persecution despite Supreme Court ruling". The Denver Post . Retrieved August 16, 2018.
52. ^ Doubek, James (Baronial 16, 2018). "Colorado Baker Sues State Again, Afterward Refusing To Make Cake For Transgender Woman". NPR . Retrieved August 16, 2018.
53. ^ "Colorado baker back in court over second LGBTQ bias allegation". Associated Press. December nineteen, 2018. Retrieved December 19, 2018 – via NBC News.
54. ^ Schmelzer, Elise (January vii, 2019). "Federal gauge denies country's request to dismiss second Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuit". The Denver Post . Retrieved January 7, 2019.
55. ^ Foody, Kathleen (March five, 2019). "Colorado, baker finish legal spat over transgender adult female's cake". Associated Press. Retrieved March 5, 2019 – via ABC News.
56. ^ "3rd Discrimination Adjust Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop". June 6, 2019. Retrieved June 11, 2019.
57. ^ "Jack Phillips back in court for refusing to broil lawyer's transgender 'altogether cake'". www.christianpost.com . Retrieved 2020-04-12 .
58. ^ Slevin, Colleen (2021-06-16). "Colorado baker fined for refusing to brand transgender transition cake". CTV News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on June xviii, 2021. Retrieved 2021-06-17 .
59. ^ Liptak, Adam (February 22, 2022). "Supreme Court to Hear Instance of Web Designer Who Objects to Same-Sex Union". The New York Times . Retrieved Feb 22, 2022.

Further reading [edit]

• Thomas C. Berg, Masterpiece Cakeshop: A Romer for Religious Objectors?, 2017-2018 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 139 (2018)
• Karlan, Pamela Due south. (1 May 2019). "But Desserts?: Public Accommodations, Religious Accommodations, Racial Equality, and Gay Rights". Supreme Court Review. 2018: 145–177. doi:10.1086/702248. ISSN 0081-9557. S2CID 201399045.
• Leslie Kendrick & Michah Schwartzman, The Supreme Court, 2022 Term — Annotate: The Etiquette of Animus, 132 Harv. L. Rev. 133 (2018)
• Laycock, Douglas (2017). "The Wedding-Vendor Cases" (PDF). Harvard Journal of Law & Public Policy. 41 (1): 49–66.
• Murray, Melissa (i May 2019). "Inverting Animus: Masterpiece Cakeshop and the New Minorities". Supreme Court Review. 2018: 257–297. doi:10.1086/703043. ISSN 0081-9557. S2CID 201384747.
• Tebbe, Nelson (2017). Religious Liberty in an Egalitarian Age. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. ISBN 978 0 674 97143 1

External links [edit]

• Text of Masterpiece Cakeshop 5. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.Due south. ___ (2018) is available from:Justia Oyez (oral argument audio) Supreme Court (sideslip opinion)
• Case folio at SCOTUSblog

popeclawaste.blogspot.com

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission

Share this post