Supreme Court Case Again Colorado Baker

2018 U.s. Supreme Courtroom example

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued December 5, 2017 Decided June 4, 2018
Full case proper noun	Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission, et al.
Docket no.	sixteen-111
Citations	584 U.S. ___ (2018) (more) 138 S. Ct. 1719; 201 L. Ed. second 35
Instance history
Prior	Judgment for plaintiff, Craig 5. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 2015 COA 115, 370 P.3d 272 (2015); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 2290 (2017).
Holding
Past failing to act in a fashion neutral to organized religion, the Colorado Civil Rights Committee violated the First Amendment to the United states of america Constitution.
Court membership
Chief 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 past Breyer
Concurrence	Gorsuch, joined by Alito
Concurrence	Thomas (in role), joined by Gorsuch
Dissent	Ginsburg, joined by Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. better. I

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission , 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the U.s.a. that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the Showtime Amendment claims of free speech and free do of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring not-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, past refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the wedlock of a gay couple, on the ground of the possessor's religious beliefs.

The case dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom hymeneals cake for a gay couple based on the owner's religious beliefs. The Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission, evaluating the case under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, found that the bakery had discriminated against the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Post-obit appeals within the state that affirmed the Commission's conclusion, the baker took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 7–ii decision, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to gratis exercise, and reversed the Committee's decision. The Courtroom did non rule on the broader intersection of anti-discrimination laws, complimentary exercise of religion, and freedom of speech, due to the complications of the Commission's lack of religious neutrality.

Procedural history [edit]

Facts of the case [edit]

Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado

In 2012, same-sex activity couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado made plans to be lawfully married in Massachusetts and render to Colorado to celebrate with their family unit and friends. At that time the state constitution prohibited same-sex marriage in Colorado, though past 2014 the state had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to ally in Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.Due south. 644 (2015).^[i]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to order a wedding ceremony cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's possessor Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their block request, informing the couple that he did non create nuptials cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked appurtenances in the store. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips whatsoever of the details of their hymeneals block.^{[ii] : two} The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who brash her that Masterpiece did not make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples^{[2] : two} because of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sexual practice matrimony at the time.^{[iii] [2] : ane–2}

Colorado Civil Rights Commission [edit]

While another bakery provided a block to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission under the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Bigotry Act, which prohibits businesses open up to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.^{[4] [3]} Colorado is one of twenty-i U.S. states that include sexual orientation as a protected form in their anti-discrimination laws.^[v] Craig and Mullins's complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop.^[6] The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the block shop was ordered not but to provide cakes to aforementioned-sex marriages, but to "change its company policies, provide 'comprehensive staff training' 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".^{[seven] [8]}

Colorado Court of Appeals [edit]

Masterpiece appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals with the aid of Alliance Defending Freedom, and refused to comply with the state's orders, instead opting to remove themselves from the wedding block business;^[4] Phillips claimed that this decision cost him xl% of his business.^[9] Alongside the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the American Ceremonious Liberties Union represented Craig and Mullins during the appeals.^[3] The state'south decision was upheld on the grounds that despite the nature of creating a custom cake, the act of making the cake was office of the expected acquit of Phillips's business concern, and not an expression of complimentary speech nor free exercise of religion.^{[iv] [10]} The court distinguished its decision in Craig from another case, brought to the Commission by William Jack, in which three bakeries refused to create a block for William Jack with the message "Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:22",^{[2] : 21 [ original inquiry? ]} citing that in the latter, the bakeries had made other cakes for Christian customers and declined that order based on the offensive bulletin rather than the customers' creed, whereas Masterpiece Cakeshop'due south refusal to provide Craig and Mullins with a wedding ceremony cake "was because of its opposition to same sexual practice marriage which...is tantamount to discrimination on the ground of sexual orientation".^{[2] : 21 [ original enquiry? ]}

The Supreme Court of Colorado declined to hear an appeal.^{[10] : 3 [ original inquiry? ]}

Earlier the Supreme Court [edit]

Petition for writ of certiorari [edit]

Masterpiece Cakeshop petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari (review), under the case proper noun Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Committee, of the following question:^[11]

Whether applying Colorado'south public accommodations constabulary to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about matrimony violates the Free Speech or Free Practice Clauses of the First Amendment.^[x]

Both the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the American Ceremonious Liberties Spousal relationship (ACLU) urged the Supreme Court to refuse the entreatment, fearing that a Court decision in favor of the business organisation would create a "gaping hole" in ceremonious rights laws on the basis of organized religion.^[iv] The final briefs at the certiorari stage were received in December 2016.^{[11] [ original enquiry? ]} The Court agreed to hear the case in the 2017 term^[12] and oral arguments were heard on December 5, 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's law is to assure that aforementioned-sex couples had access to the same services as heterosexual couples, the law goes too far in its enforcement, since Craig and Mullins were easily able to obtain a wedding cake from a dissimilar vendor in the land.^[14] Masterpiece farther believed the anti-discrimination police tin can be used to selectively discriminate against organized religion, equally the Commission has allowed bakers to turn down to provide cakes with anti-aforementioned-sex marriage letters on them, even though the Committee 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 bear of a business, not their voice communication, and in cases like a wedding cake, "[no] reasonable observer would understand the Visitor'south provision of a cake to a gay couple as an expression of its approval of the customer'southward marriage".^[xiv] They further argued that the cakeshop could provide catchall language to explain that any services they provide do not endorse whatsoever expressions of gratuitous speech associated with it, an allowance within the anti-discrimination law.^[14]

Amicus briefs [edit]

Around 100 legal briefs were filed by tertiary parties, roughly equally split up in supporting either side of the example.^[13] Many civil rights organizations filed briefs in support of Craig and Mullins, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund,^[15] the Lawyers' Commission for Civil Rights Nether Law, Southern Poverty Law Center,^[16] the Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs,^[17] and the Civil Rights Forum, a group of plaintiff-side civil rights attorneys.^[18] The National Women'south Law Center argued in its amicus brief that just equally the Court compared the effects of race and sexual discrimination in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, information technology should compare those harms to those created by sexual-orientation discrimination in this case.^[xix]

Among those supporting Phillips included the The states Department of Justice nether the Trump administration.^{[20] [5]} While the Department asserts that anti-bigotry laws are necessary to prevent businesses that provide goods and services from discriminating, these laws cannot be used to compel a business organization into expressing spoken language they practice not concord with, nor used to provide goods and services with such expressions without the ability for the business to affirm they practice not concord with those expressions.^[14] The cursory was criticized by several organizations, including those that back up LGBT rights, claiming the brief equally a design of hostile actions by the Trump assistants and fearing that a decision in favor of Masterpiece would enable such businesses to have a "license to discriminate".^{[20] [21]}

Oral arguments [edit]

	Recording of oral arguments before the Supreme Court.
Problems playing this file? Run into media help.

Oral arguments for the plaintiffs were provided by Kristen Waggoner for the Alliance Defending Liberty, representing Phillips, and the Solicitor General of the U.s.a. Noel Francisco, presenting the federal government's instance as amicus curiae in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop. The defendants' arguments were given by Colorado Solicitor Full general Frederick Yarger, on behalf of the Colorado Civil Rights Committee, and David D. Cole of the ACLU, on behalf of Craig and Mullins. Questions asked by the Justices attempted to decide where the bounds of a cake bakery's rights and the rights of those soliciting his services would extend past 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 Court'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 example history, he has been a potent supporter of gay rights (having authored all of the landmark gay rights rulings past the Supreme Courtroom: Romer v. Evans in 1996, Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, United states v. Windsor in 2013, and Obergefell v. Hodges in 2015), and a corporation's freedom of speech 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 v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. ___ (2014).^{[5] [23] [24] [25] [26]}

Opinion of the Court [edit]

Majority stance [edit]

The Courtroom issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, ordering a reversal of the decision made by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The majority stance was written by Justice Anthony Kennedy, and joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Samuel Alito, Stephen Breyer, Elena Kagan and Neil Gorsuch. The stance stated that although a baker, in his capacity as the owner of a business concern serving the public, "might have his correct to the free do of his religion limited by generally applicable laws", a State conclusion in an adjudication "in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself" is a factor violating the "State's obligation of religious neutrality" under the Free Do Clause of the Beginning Amendment to the Constitution.^{[27] [ original research? ]} Kennedy'due south opinion stated that the Commission'southward review of Phillips's example exhibited hostility towards his religious views. The Commission compared Phillips'south religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of off-white and neutral enforcement of Colorado'south anti-discrimination constabulary".^[28] Kennedy's opinion also cited the 3 exemptions the commission previously granted for the non-discrimination law arising from the William Jack complaints. The stance too noted differences in handling previous exemptions as indicative of Commission hostility towards religious conventionalities, rather than maintaining neutrality.^[29] Kennedy'due south stance noted that he may have been inclined to rule in favor of the Commission if they had remained religiously neutral in their evaluation.^[30]

Concurring opinions [edit]

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

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote some other opinion, concurring in role and concurring in judgment, joined by Gorsuch. Thomas found that the majority opinion did non consider the free spoken communication, free exercise or the anti-discrimination implications of the example, despite significant attention during oral arguments.^{[33] [34]} Thomas opined back up for Masterpiece, both on grounds of free speech and costless practise.^[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 role the client'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 free do.^[37] Instead the courtroom addressed both sides. Land actors like the Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission on the 1 hand must ensure neutral and respectful consideration of claims for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws which are made by people who exercise their Start Amendment right to complimentary practice of religion.^{[38] [34]} However, this exemption won't utilize broadly in the futurity 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 appurtenances and services in an open market".^[39] The Supreme Courtroom also specifically made it clear, on the other hand, that gay Americans are too entitled to strong defense rights.^[39] Justice Kennedy wrote: "[t]he First Subpoena ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so key to their lives and faiths. However, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a full general dominion that such objections do not allow business organization owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal admission to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicative public accommodations law."^[twoscore]

Kennedy's determination specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips made past the Commission as their reason to reverse the ruling, only because of the existence of this hostility in the current case, they could not dominion on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination police and the free practise of religion. Kennedy stated that "[t]he outcome of cases similar this in other circumstances must wait further 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'southward conclusion affirmed that there remains protection of same-sexual activity couples and gay rights which states can still enforce through anti-bigotry laws, a point likewise agreed to by Ginsburg's dissent.^[34] The general constitutionality of anti-bigotry laws to forestall bigotry against sexual orientation affirmed by the Masterpiece decision was reflected in lower courts that same week, in a case decided by the Arizona Court of Appeals, Brush & Nib Studio 5. Phoenix,^[43] which upheld the city of Phoenix'southward anti-bigotry ordinance that included sexual orientation. The Court of Appeals extensively quoted Masterpiece in affirming the Arizona Superior Court'due south prior decision.^{[44] [45] [46]}

The Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Masterpiece, supported the Court'due south decision in finding that condemned the Commission's review of Phillips's case, stating that "Tolerance and respect for good-faith differences of opinion are essential in a lodge similar ours".^[34] The American Ceremonious Liberties Union welcomed the part of the decision affirming protection of gay rights, stating that the Court "reaffirmed its longstanding dominion that states can prevent the harms of bigotry in the marketplace, including against L.G.B.T. people".^[34] The decision was also welcomed by the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. Sherrilyn Ifill, LDF'south President and Manager-Counsel, stated: "The narrow ruling [...] is based on the universal principle that ramble claims must be heard in every instance before a neutral tribunal. More of import was the affirmation of eight Justices that discrimination in public accommodations enjoys no First Amendment protection. This principle has long been an essential piece of the civil rights motility and established anti-discrimination law. This is specially important today, in 2018, when people of color are all the same experiencing persistent and widespread discrimination while they shop, eat, or access other public spaces."^[xl]

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

Masterpiece 's ground of evaluating statements of public officials to determine if at that place was religious hostility in evaluating cases arose in Justice Sotomayor'south dissent in Trump v. Hawaii, 585 U.South. ___ (2018), which dealt with President Trump's travel ban against several nations which had a high Muslim population. While the majority ruled that the ban was within the President's powers and sent the case dorsum 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's statements that she believed showed hostility towards Muslims and would have not justified the ban.^[50]

Subsequent events [edit]

Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a similar case in 2018, stemming from an incident in June 2017. The baker refused to bake Autumn Scardina, a Colorado lawyer, a cake to celebrate her birthday, which would have had a pink interior and blue exterior. Phillips stated later that he refused to bake such a cake based on his Christian beliefs that a person does not go to choose their gender. Scardina complained to the Colorado Division of Civil Rights, which found in June 2018 sufficient bear witness that the bakery discriminated against her transgender status, and ordered the parties into compulsory mediation. Phillips subsequently filed a lawsuit against the state in August 2018 to seek a permanent injunction to prevent the land from enforcing its anti-discrimination laws against him too equally castigating damages. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, who is named as a defendant in the suit, expects that the case will require the Supreme Court to revisit its decision from Masterpiece, as the previous ruling "did not address the bones effect" of religious freedom.^{[51] [52] [53]} A federal judge refused to dismiss Phillip'south arrange in January 2019, though did agree to remove Hickenlooper from the suit due to him no longer being governor.^[54]

In March 2019, the suit and countersuit between Phillips and the land were dropped, with the state believing that while the cadre issue on the intersection of discrimination against sexual orientation or gender identity and religious behavior of service business remains in question, the specific case around Scardina was not the proper vehicle to answer those questions. The agreement allowed Scardina, should she want, to pursue her own civil action confronting Masterpiece.^[55] In June 2019, Scardina, represented by attorneys Paula Greisen and John McHugh, brought ceremonious conform against Phillips in federal district courtroom on the perceived discrimination. Greisen stated they felt the country did non represent Scardina'southward case well, thus taking activity directly.^[56] Scardina brought a second lawsuit against Phillips in April 2020, waiting past the entreatment borderline to file in a different courtroom, for more than $100,000 in damages, fines, and attorney's fees.^[57] On June 15, 2021, Denver District Estimate A. Bruce Jones ruled that Phillips had violated Colorado's anti-discrimination police past refusing to bake a cake for Scardina and ordered him to pay a fine of $500. On June xvi, Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), the grouping representing Phillips, said it would appeal the ruling.^[58]

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

Encounter also [edit]

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

References [edit]

1. ^ Barnes, Robert (June 26, 2017). "Supreme Court to take case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple". The Washington Mail . Retrieved June 26, 2017.
2. ^ ^{a b c d due east} Craig 5. Masterpiece Cake Shop et al., No. 14CA1351 (Colo. Ct. of App. August 13, 2015)
3. ^ ^{a b c} Parloff, Roger (March 6, 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 volition hear case of Colorado baker who refused to brand wedding cake for same-sexual practice couple". The Los Angeles Times . Retrieved June 26, 2017.
5. ^ ^{a b c} Cruel, David (September 12, 2017). "Colorado cake maker asks Supreme Court to provide a religious liberty right to refuse gay couple". The Los Angeles Times . Retrieved September 14, 2017.
6. ^ "Colo. judge orders Christian baker to bake gay nuptials cake. Will he say no?". Christian Science Monitor. Dec 7, 2013. Retrieved June 6, 2015.
7. ^ "Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop". August 13, 2015.
8. ^ "Craig and Mullins 5. Masterpiece Cakeshop - Commisson's Final Order". June 2, 2014.
9. ^ Roberts, Roxanne (November xxx, 2017). "Wedding cakes tin can be stunning creations. Only do they qualify as art?". The Washington Postal service . Retrieved December 1, 2017.
10. ^ ^{a b c} "Petition for a Writ of Certiorari" (PDF) . Retrieved 16 April 2017.
11. ^ ^{a b} "Docket for case No. xvi-111". Supreme Court of the The states . Retrieved 16 April 2017.
12. ^ de Faddy, Ariane; Diaz, Daniella (June 25, 2017). "Supreme Court agrees to hear religious freedom case side by side term". CNN . Retrieved June 25, 2017.
13. ^ ^{a b} Wolf, Richard (November 2, 2017). "Free speech communication v. same-sex activity marriage case floods high court". The states Today . Retrieved November 14, 2017.
14. ^ ^{a b c d e} Howe, Amy (September 11, 2017). "Wedding cakes v. religious beliefs?: In Plain English language". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved September fourteen, 2017.
15. ^ "Brief of Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund in Support of Respondents" (PDF). Oct xxx, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
16. ^ "Cursory amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, et al" (PDF). October 30, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
17. ^ "Brief of Amicus Curiae Washington Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights and Urban Affairs, Public Interest Law Center, Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and Mississippi Heart for Justice in Support of Respondents" (PDF). October thirty, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
18. ^ "Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Civil Rights Forum in Support of Respondents" (PDF). October 30, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
19. ^ McClain, Linda C. (2019). ""'Male Chauvinism' Is Under Assail From All Sides at Present": Roberts v. United States Jaycees, Sex Bigotry, and the First Amendment". Fordham Constabulary Review. 87: 2392. Retrieved 26 November 2019.
20. ^ ^{a b} S.M. (September viii, 2017). "The Section of Justice backs a baker who refused to brand a gay hymeneals block". The Economist . Retrieved 12 September 2017.
21. ^ Moreau, Julie (September xi, 2017). "Section of Justice's Gay Rights Brief Slammed by Advocates as 'License to Discriminate'". NBCNews . Retrieved September 11, 2017.
22. ^ "Alive Coverage: Supreme Court Hears Same-Sex Wedding Cake Case". The Wall Street Journal. December 5, 2017. Retrieved December 5, 2017.
23. ^ Liptak, Adam (September 16, 2017). "Cake Is His 'Art.' And then Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple?". The New York Times . Retrieved September 18, 2017.
24. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (September 27, 2017). "No matter how y'all slice it, U.Southward. jurist Kennedy key vote in cake instance". Reuters. Retrieved September 27, 2017.
25. ^ Howe, Amy (vii Dec 2017). "Argument analysis: Conservative majority leaning toward ruling for Colorado bakery (UPDATED)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved 7 December 2017. With Kennedy seemingly holding the central vote, the couple and their supporters at first seemed to have reason to be optimistic.
26. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (September 27, 2017). "No matter how you slice information technology, U.S. jurist Kennedy fundamental vote in cake case". Reuters. Retrieved February vii, 2018.
27. ^ Slip op., pp. ii-iii, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, example no. 16-111, U.S. Supreme Court (June 4, 2018).
28. ^ Pavich, Katie (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Court Overwhelmingly Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker in Hymeneals Block Instance". Townhall . Retrieved June iv, 2018.
29. ^ Volokh, Eugene (June four, 2018). "The Masterpiece Cakeshop Conclusion Leaves Well-nigh All the Big Questions Unresolved". Reason . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
30. ^ Rubin, Jennifer (June 4, 2018). "In baker'due south case, neither side has much reason to rejoice". The Washington Mail service . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
31. ^ Sherman, Marker (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Court rules in favor of Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex wedding cake". chicagotribune.com . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
32. ^ Sheppard, Ilya (June 4, 2018). "Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling Tastes Good, But Is Empty Calories". The Cato Institute . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
33. ^ Epps, Garrett (June 4, 2018). "Justice Kennedy'due south Masterpiece Ruling". The Atlantic . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
34. ^ ^{a b c d e} 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 13, 2020. Retrieved June four, 2018.
35. ^ Whelan, Ed (June 4, 2018). "Masterpiece Cakeshop Victory". National Review . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
36. ^ Sideslip op., pp. 2-3, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. five. Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission, example no. 16-111, U.S. Supreme Court (June four, 2018)
37. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Abroad Gay Couple". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June 4, 2018.
38. ^ Professor of ramble law at the Academy 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 By Heather Timmons & Ephrat Livni (June four, 2018). "Masterpiece: The Supreme Court's Colorado baker conclusion contains a robust defense of gay rights". Quartz. Quartz. Archived from the original on June 4, 2018. Retrieved May 23, 2020.
40. ^ ^{a b} "Supreme Court Reaffirms Core Anti-Bigotry Principles in Masterpiece Cakeshop Case". NAACP Legal Defence force and Educational Fund. NAACP Legal Defence and Educational Fund. June four, 2018. Archived from the original on September fourteen, 2018.
41. ^ "Supreme Court rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't brand same-sex wedding cake". Reuters. June iv, 2018. Retrieved June 4, 2018 – via CBS News.
42. ^ Barnes, Robert (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Courtroom rules in favor of bakery who would not make hymeneals block for gay couple". The Washington Post . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
43. ^ Castor & Nib Studio v. Phoenix , No. 1 CA-CV 16-0602 (Ariz. Ct. App. June seven, 2018).
44. ^ Johnson, Chris (June 7, 2018). "Courtroom Applies Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling to Uphold Ariz. LGBT Ordinance". Washington Blade . Retrieved June 9, 2018.
45. ^ Ring, Trudy (June 8, 2018). "Arizona Courtroom Uses Cakeshop Case to Affirm LGBT Rights". The Abet . Retrieved June 9, 2018.
46. ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (June 7, 2018). "Making Sense of Masterpiece Cakeshop". Slate . Retrieved June ix, 2018.
47. ^ Wolf, Richard (June 25, 2018). "Offset block, now flowers: Supreme Court gives florist who refused to serve gay wedding a new hearing". USA Today . Retrieved June 25, 2018.
48. ^ Gutman, David (half-dozen June 2019). "Washington Supreme Court rules once more confronting Richland florist who refused flowers for gay wedding ceremony". The Seattle Times . Retrieved 6 June 2019.
49. ^ Country v. Arlene's Flowers, Inc. , __ P.3d __ (Launder. 2019).
50. ^ Hurd, Hilary; Schwartz, Yishai (June 26, 2018). "The Supreme Court 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 (August xvi, 2018). "Colorado Bakery Sues State Again, Afterwards Refusing To Make Block For Transgender Adult female". NPR . Retrieved August 16, 2018.
53. ^ "Colorado baker dorsum in courtroom over 2d LGBTQ bias allegation". Associated Press. December 19, 2018. Retrieved Dec 19, 2018 – via NBC News.
54. ^ Schmelzer, Elise (January 7, 2019). "Federal approximate denies state's request to dismiss second Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuit". The Denver Mail . Retrieved January vii, 2019.
55. ^ Foody, Kathleen (March v, 2019). "Colorado, baker end legal spat over transgender adult female's cake". Associated Press. Retrieved March v, 2019 – via ABC News.
56. ^ "Tertiary Bigotry Adapt Filed Confronting Masterpiece Cakeshop". June vi, 2019. Retrieved June xi, 2019.
57. ^ "Jack Phillips back in court for refusing to broil lawyer's transgender 'birthday cake'". www.christianpost.com . Retrieved 2020-04-12 .
58. ^ Slevin, Colleen (2021-06-xvi). "Colorado bakery fined for refusing to make transgender transition cake". CTV News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on June eighteen, 2021. Retrieved 2021-06-17 .
59. ^ Liptak, Adam (February 22, 2022). "Supreme Court to Hear Case of Web Designer Who Objects to Aforementioned-Sexual activity Marriage". The New York Times . Retrieved February 22, 2022.

Farther reading [edit]

• Thomas C. Berg, Masterpiece Cakeshop: A Romer for Religious Objectors?, 2017-2018 Cato Sup. Ct. Rev. 139 (2018)
• Karlan, Pamela S. (1 May 2019). "But Desserts?: Public Accommodations, Religious Accommodations, Racial Equality, and Gay Rights". Supreme Courtroom Review. 2018: 145–177. doi:10.1086/702248. ISSN 0081-9557. S2CID 201399045.
• Leslie Kendrick & Michah Schwartzman, The Supreme Court, 2017 Term — Comment: 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 (ane May 2019). "Inverting Animus: Masterpiece Cakeshop and the New Minorities". Supreme Courtroom Review. 2018: 257–297. doi:x.1086/703043. ISSN 0081-9557. S2CID 201384747.
• Tebbe, Nelson (2017). Religious Freedom 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 Committee, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) is available from:Justia Oyez (oral argument sound) Supreme Court (slip stance)
• Instance page at SCOTUSblog

wilsonworning.blogspot.com

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

Share this post