Masterpiece Cakeshop: Proving Government Hostility to Religion (CRS Report for Congress)
| Release Date |
June 5, 2018 |
| Report Number |
LSB10146 |
| Report Type |
Legal Sidebar |
| Authors |
Valerie C. Brannon |
| Source Agency |
Congressional Research Service |
Summary:
On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court released its much-anticipated decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v.
Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The case presented a dispute between the State of Colorado and a
baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding. The state argued that this refusal
violated its laws prohibiting businesses that serve the public, known as places of public accommodation,
from discriminating on certain protected grounds, including sexual orientation. The baker had argued that
the state’s enforcement of its anti-discrimination laws violated his First Amendment rights of free speech
and free exercise of religion. While much of the briefing before the Court focused on the baker’s free
speech claims, the Court, in a 7-2 ruling authored by Justice Anthony Kennedy, ultimately ruled for the
baker on free exercise grounds. In so doing, the Court avoided many of the most difficult issues presented
by the free speech claims, such as whether making a cake can be deemed to be an expressive activity
protected by the Free Speech Clause, and if so, whether the First Amendment’s protections against
compelled expression require a carve-out from Colorado’s public accommodations law. Instead, the
Court’s heavily fact-dependent decision turned on the state’s reasoning underlying its decision to enforce
the anti-discrimination statute in this particular instance. Nonetheless, the opinion is significant because it
clarifies what kind of government action suffices to demonstrate a hostility to religion that will invalidate
an enforcement action—and underscores the importance of government neutrality towards religion,
especially when evaluating claims by the religious to the protection of the First Amendment.
This Sidebar begins by reviewing the broad constitutional principles underlying the central rationale for
the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, then discusses the specifics of the decision and the importance of the
case moving forward.
