Supreme Court Tosses Gay Bias Finding Against Wedding Cake Baker

The U.S. Supreme Court threw out a discrimination finding against a Colorado baker who wouldn’t make a cake to celebrate a same-sex wedding, in a narrow ruling that doesn’t resolve broad constitutional questions about the dueling rights of gay people and business owners.

A seven-justice majority said the Colorado Civil Rights Commission finding in the baker’s case was tainted by animus toward religion. Writing for the court, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy pointed to one commissioner’s comments that religion had been used to justify slavery and the Holocaust and that invoking religion to hurt others is “despicable.“

“The commission’s hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment’s guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion,” Kennedy wrote.

Kennedy, however, made clear that the court wasn’t deciding whether other business owners have a right not to take part in gay weddings, saying those issues “must await further elaboration in the courts.“

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented. Two other members of the court’s liberal wing, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan, joined the majority while writing separately to say they read court’s opinion as a limited one.

The Civil Rights Commission had required bakery owner Jack Phillips to either make cakes for gay weddings or stop making custom wedding cakes at all.

Reception in 2012

The dispute began in 2012, before same-sex marriage was recognized in Colorado, when David Mullins and Charlie Craig visited Phillips’s suburban Denver bakery, Masterpiece Cakeshop. The two men wanted a cake for a reception they planned to hold in Colorado after they married in Massachusetts.

Phillips told the couple he didn’t make cakes for same-sex weddings, prompting them to file a civil rights complaint. State officials joined the case against Phillips, and a Colorado appeals court ruled against the bakery.

Kennedy said both sides in the case raised legitimate concerns.

“Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth,” he wrote. “For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights.“

He added: “At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression.“

‘All Kinds of Discrimination’

The core holding focused on comments made by two of the Colorado commission’s seven members during its consideration of the case in 2014. Then-Commissioner Diann Rice said that religion “has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the Holocaust.“

She added: “To me, it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use, to use their religion to hurt others.”

Kennedy said those comments disparaged religion and “cast doubt on the fairness an impartiality of the commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.“

In her dissenting opinion, Ginsburg said she saw “no reason why the comments of one or two commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips’ refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins.“

The Trump administration had urged a limited ruling for Phillips that would protect bakers, musicians, photographers and other wedding vendors whose work involves expression.

The case is Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm’n, U.S., No. 16-111, 6/4/18.

©2018 Bloomberg L.P. All rights reserved. Used with permission

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at Laurie Asséo, Justin Blum