Home  ›  Masterpiece Cakeshop Colorado Civil Rights Commission Again

Masterpiece Cakeshop Colorado Civil Rights Commission Again

Written By Tuesday, March 15, 2022 Add Comment Edit

The states Supreme Court case

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Supreme Courtroom of the U.s.a.
Argued Dec 5, 2017
Decided June 4, 2018
Full case proper name Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., et al., Petitioners v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, et al.
Docket no. sixteen-111
Citations 584 U.South. ___ (2018) (more)

138 S. Ct. 1719; 201 L. Ed. second 35
Instance 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 act in a style neutral to faith, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Subpoena to the U.s.a. 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
Bulk Kennedy, joined by Roberts, Breyer, Alito, Kagan, Gorsuch
Concurrence Kagan, joined past Breyer
Concurrence Gorsuch, joined past Alito
Concurrence Thomas (in office), joined past Gorsuch
Dissent Ginsburg, joined past Sotomayor
Laws applied
U.S. Const. meliorate. I

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission , 584 U.Southward. ___ (2018), was a instance in the Supreme Court of the Us that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations tin reject certain services based on the First Amendment claims of gratis speech and gratis practise of religion, and therefore exist granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding block for the marriage of a gay couple, on the footing of the possessor's religious beliefs.

The instance dealt with Masterpiece Cakeshop, a baker in Lakewood, Colorado, which refused to design a custom wedding cake for a gay couple based on the owner'south religious beliefs. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission, evaluating the instance under the state's anti-discrimination law, the Colorado Anti-Bigotry Human action, found that the bakery had discriminated confronting the couple and issued specific orders for the bakery. Post-obit appeals inside the land that affirmed the Commission's decision, the bakery took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a 7–2 conclusion, the Court ruled on narrow grounds that the Commission did not employ religious neutrality, violating Masterpiece owner Jack Phillips's rights to free practice, and reversed the Commission's determination. The Court did not rule on the broader intersection of anti-bigotry laws, free practice 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 couple Charlie Craig and David Mullins from Colorado fabricated plans to exist lawfully married in Massachusetts and return to Colorado to celebrate with their family and friends. At that fourth dimension the state constitution prohibited aforementioned-sex activity matrimony in Colorado, though by 2022 the land had allowed same-sex marriages, and the Supreme Court of the United States would affirm that gay couples have the fundamental right to marry in Obergefell 5. Hodges 576 U.S. 644 (2015).[1]

Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's possessor Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their block 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 baked goods in the shop. Craig and Mullins promptly left Masterpiece without discussing with Phillips any of the details of their wedding cake.[two] : ii The following day, Craig's mother, Deborah Munn, called Phillips, who advised her that Masterpiece did non make wedding cakes for the weddings of gay couples[2] : 2 considering of his religious beliefs and because Colorado did not recognize same-sex activity marriage at the time.[iii] [2] : 1–2

Colorado Civil Rights Commission [edit]

While another bakery provided a cake to the couple, Craig and Mullins filed a complaint to the Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission nether the state's public accommodations law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Human action, which prohibits businesses open to the public from discriminating against their customers on the basis of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.[4] [iii] Colorado is one of twenty-one U.Due south. states that include sexual orientation as a protected class in their anti-discrimination laws.[five] Craig and Mullins's complaint resulted in a lawsuit, Craig 5. Masterpiece Cakeshop.[half dozen] The case was decided in favor of the plaintiffs; the cake store was ordered not only to provide cakes to same-sexual practice marriages, but 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 whatever prospective customers".[7] [8]

Colorado Court of Appeals [edit]

Masterpiece appealed the decision to the Courtroom of Appeals with the aid of Alliance Defending Liberty, and refused to comply with the state's orders, instead opting to remove themselves from the wedding cake business;[4] Phillips claimed that this decision cost him 40% of his business.[9] Alongside the Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission, the American Ceremonious 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 cake, the act of making the cake was office of the expected conduct of Phillips's concern, and not an expression of free speech nor complimentary practise of religion.[4] [10] The court distinguished its decision in Craig from another case, brought to the Commission past William Jack, in which iii bakeries refused to create a cake for William Jack with the bulletin "Homosexuality is a insufferable 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 order 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 sex activity marriage which...is tantamount to discrimination on the footing of sexual orientation".[two] : 21 [ original enquiry? ]

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

Before the Supreme Court [edit]

Petition for writ of certiorari [edit]

Masterpiece Cakeshop petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court for certiorari (review), under the instance name Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. 5. Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission, of the post-obit question:[11]

Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious behavior about marriage violates the Gratis Spoken communication or Costless Do Clauses of the Start Subpoena.[x]

Both the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) urged the Supreme Court to refuse the appeal, fearing that a Court determination in favor of the business would create a "gaping hole" in civil rights laws on the basis of faith.[four] The final briefs at the certiorari stage were received in December 2016.[eleven] [ original research? ] The Courtroom agreed to hear the case in the 2022 term[12] and oral arguments were heard on December 5, 2017.[13]

In further filings, Masterpiece requested that the Colorado anti-bigotry law be reviewed by the Supreme Courtroom under strict scrutiny. He further identified that while the state's law is to clinch that same-sex couples had access to the aforementioned services every bit heterosexual couples, the law goes too far in its enforcement, since Craig and Mullins were easily able to obtain a wedding cake from a different vendor in the country.[fourteen] Masterpiece farther believed the anti-discrimination law can be used to selectively discriminate confronting religion, as the Committee has allowed bakers to refuse to provide cakes with anti-same-sex union messages on them, even though the Commission said these refusals were appropriate due to the offensiveness of the letters and not on the basis of religion.[14] The State and the ACLU countered these points, stating the police force was aimed but at conduct of a business, not their speech, and in cases like a hymeneals block, "[no] reasonable observer would understand the Visitor's provision of a cake to a gay couple every bit an expression of its approval of the customer'south marriage".[xiv] They further argued that the cakeshop could provide catchall linguistic communication to explicate that whatsoever services they provide do not endorse any expressions of free speech associated with it, an allowance within the anti-discrimination constabulary.[fourteen]

Amicus briefs [edit]

Effectually 100 legal briefs were filed by 3rd parties, roughly every bit split in supporting either side of the case.[13] Many ceremonious rights organizations filed briefs in support of Craig and Mullins, including the NAACP Legal Defense force Fund,[15] the Lawyers' Committee for Ceremonious Rights Under Police force, Southern Poverty Law Centre,[sixteen] 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's Law Heart argued in its amicus brief that just as the Court compared the effects of race and sexual discrimination in Roberts v. U.S. Jaycees, it should compare those harms to those created by sexual-orientation discrimination in this case.[19]

Among those supporting Phillips included the United States Section of Justice under the Trump administration.[20] [5] While the Department asserts that anti-discrimination laws are necessary to preclude businesses that provide goods and services from discriminating, these laws cannot be used to compel a business into expressing oral communication they practice not agree with, nor used to provide goods and services with such expressions without the ability for the business to affirm they do not concur with those expressions.[14] The cursory was criticized past several organizations, including those that support LGBT rights, claiming the cursory as a design of hostile deportment by the Trump assistants and fearing that a decision in favor of Masterpiece would enable such businesses to take a "license to discriminate".[twenty] [21]

Oral arguments [edit]

Oral arguments for the plaintiffs were provided by Kristen Waggoner for the Alliance Defending Freedom, representing Phillips, and the Solicitor Full general of the United States Noel Francisco, presenting the federal regime'south example as amicus curiae in back up of Masterpiece Cakeshop. The defendants' arguments were given by Colorado Solicitor Full 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 past the Justices attempted to determine where the bounds of a cake baker'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 example would be divided, with the ultimate decision falling on the opinion of Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has historically been a swing vote in his term. In his past case history, he has been a potent supporter of gay rights (having authored all of the landmark gay rights rulings by the Supreme Court: Romer v. Evans in 1996, Lawrence v. Texas in 2003, United States v. Windsor in 2013, and Obergefell five. Hodges in 2015), and a corporation's freedom of voice communication in his bulk stance for Citizens United v. FEC 558 U.S. 310 (2010), and freedom of religion through his concurrence with the bulk in Burwell five. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. 573 U.S. ___ (2014).[5] [23] [24] [25] [26]

Opinion of the Court [edit]

Majority opinion [edit]

The Court issued its ruling on June 4, 2018, ordering a reversal of the decision fabricated by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The majority opinion 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 opinion stated that although a bakery, in his chapters as the owner of a business serving the public, "might have his right to the costless exercise of his organized religion limited past generally applicable laws", a State determination in an arbitrament "in which religious hostility on the function of the Country itself" is a factor violating the "State's obligation of religious neutrality" nether the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution.[27] [ original research? ] Kennedy's stance stated that the Commission's review of Phillips's example exhibited hostility towards his religious views. The Commission compared Phillips's religious beliefs to defense of slavery or the Holocaust. Kennedy plant such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination police".[28] Kennedy's stance 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 belief, rather than maintaining neutrality.[29] Kennedy's opinion noted that he may have been inclined to dominion 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 past Breyer, taking particular notice 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's religious beliefs and concurred with the reversal. Kagan cited as significant differences between prior Committee exemptions and the instant case. She posited the Committee could have ruled differently in the 2 situations if they had stayed religiously neutral. Gorsuch indicated the Commission should maintain consistency among like cases.[32]

Justice Clarence Thomas wrote another opinion, concurring in office and concurring in judgment, joined by Gorsuch. Thomas institute that the majority opinion did not consider the free speech, free practice or the anti-discrimination implications of the example, despite significant attention during oral arguments.[33] [34] Thomas opined support for Masterpiece, both on grounds of free voice communication and free practise.[35]

Dissenting opinions [edit]

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote the dissenting opinion, joined past Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Ginsburg believed that the Commission acted adequately in evaluating the case, saying "what critically differentiates them is the role the customer'due south 'statutorily protected trait,' played in the denial of service".[36] [ original inquiry? ]

Assay [edit]

The Courtroom avoided ruling broadly on the intersection of anti-discrimination laws and rights to free exercise.[37] Instead the court addressed both sides. State actors like the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on the one hand must ensure neutral and respectful consideration of claims for religious exemptions from anti-discrimination laws which are made by people who exercise their Beginning Amendment right to gratuitous exercise of religion.[38] [34] However, this exemption won't apply broadly in the hereafter because future disputes like the ane in Masterpiece "must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious behavior, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open up market".[39] The Supreme Court also specifically made it clear, on the other hand, that gay Americans are also entitled to potent defense rights.[39] Justice Kennedy wrote: "[t]he Starting time Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths. Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general dominion that such objections do non allow business owners and other actors in the economic system and in social club to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicative public accommodations constabulary."[forty]

Kennedy's conclusion specifically noted the hostility towards Phillips fabricated by the Commission as their reason to opposite the ruling, but because of the beingness of this hostility in the electric current case, they could not dominion on the broader issue regarding anti-discrimination law and the costless practice of faith. Kennedy stated that "[t]he effect of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue boldness to sincere religious behavior, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market".[41] [42] Kennedy's determination affirmed that there remains protection of aforementioned-sex couples and gay rights which states tin can still enforce through anti-discrimination laws, a indicate also agreed to by Ginsburg'southward dissent.[34] The general constitutionality of anti-discrimination laws to prevent discrimination against sexual orientation affirmed past the Masterpiece decision was reflected in lower courts that same week, in a case decided by the Arizona Courtroom of Appeals, Brush & Nib Studio v. Phoenix,[43] which upheld the city of Phoenix'due south anti-discrimination 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 Brotherhood Defending Liberty, which represented Masterpiece, supported the Court'southward decision in finding that condemned the Committee'southward review of Phillips's case, stating that "Tolerance and respect for proficient-faith differences of opinion are essential in a society like ours".[34] The American Civil Liberties Matrimony welcomed the office of the decision affirming protection of gay rights, stating that the Courtroom "reaffirmed its longstanding dominion that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against L.M.B.T. people".[34] The decision was as well welcomed by the NAACP Legal Defense 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 of import was the affirmation of viii Justices that discrimination in public accommodations enjoys no First Subpoena protection. This principle has long been an essential slice of the civil rights motion and established anti-discrimination constabulary. This is particularly of import today, in 2018, when people of color are nonetheless experiencing persistent and widespread discrimination while they shop, consume, or admission other public spaces."[xl]

Some other predominate case involving anti-bigotry laws and religious freedom that was in the court organization during Masterpiece was the Arlene's Flowers lawsuit in Washington, with the issue over bloom arrangements being provided for a aforementioned-sex wedding. 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 shop owner used that conclusion to assert that they were shown similar religious hostility, and requested their case to be reheard. On June 25, 2018, the Supreme Court dismissed the pending petition, and ordered that lower courts review the blossom shop'southward 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 bear witness of religious animus.[48] [49] Similarly, a case from Oregon, Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, had reached the Oregon Supreme Courtroom before the Supreme Court heard Masterpiece. The Oregon Supreme Court declined to overturn an anti-discrimination ruling made against a bakery by the Oregon Court of Appeals, with the baker petitioning the federal Supreme Courtroom to hear the example. In June 2019, the Supreme Court granted certiorari, and in a summary judgement, vacated the Appeals Court ruling and required the case be heard again in light of the determination on Masterpiece.

Masterpiece 's footing of evaluating statements of public officials to determine if there was religious hostility in evaluating cases arose in Justice Sotomayor's dissent in Trump 5. Hawaii, 585 U.S. ___ (2018), which dealt with President Trump's travel ban confronting several nations which had a loftier Muslim population. While the majority ruled that the ban was within the President's powers and sent the example 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 have not justified the ban.[50]

Subsequent events [edit]

Masterpiece Cakeshop became involved in a like 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 altogether, which would have had a pinkish interior and blue exterior. Phillips stated later that he refused to bake such a cake based on his Christian behavior that a person does not go to choose their gender. Scardina complained to the Colorado Division of Ceremonious Rights, which found in June 2022 sufficient evidence that the bakery 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 preclude the land from enforcing its anti-bigotry laws against him as well as punitive damages. Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, who is named as a defendant in the suit, expects that the case volition require the Supreme Court to revisit its decision from Masterpiece, every bit the previous ruling "did not address the basic issue" of religious freedom.[51] [52] [53] A federal approximate refused to dismiss Phillip's adapt 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 betwixt Phillips and the state were dropped, with the land believing that while the core issue on the intersection of bigotry against 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 answer those questions. The agreement allowed Scardina, should she want, to pursue her own civil action against 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 land did not represent Scardina's example well, thus taking action directly.[56] Scardina brought a second lawsuit against Phillips in Apr 2020, waiting by the appeal deadline to file in a different court, for more than $100,000 in damages, fines, and chaser's fees.[57] On June fifteen, 2021, Denver District Judge A. Bruce Jones ruled that Phillips had violated Colorado's anti-bigotry law by refusing to bake a cake for Scardina and ordered him to pay a fine of $500. On June 16, Alliance Defending Liberty (ADF), the group representing Phillips, said information technology would entreatment the ruling.[58]

The Supreme Court granted certification to 303 Creative LLC five. Elenis in February 2022, which again dealt with Colorado's anti-discrimination laws as they apply to public businesses. The instance concerns a Christian web designer who seeks to make hymeneals proclamation websites for heterosexual couples just. She fears punishment under Colorado'southward anti-bigotry police force and thus aims to cake the police force as a violation of her First Amendment rights.[59]

Run into also [edit]

  • Lee v Ashers Baking Company Ltd and others, a similar case from the Great britain
  • List of United States 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 have case on baker who refused to sell wedding cake to gay couple". The Washington Post . Retrieved June 26, 2017.
  2. ^ a b c d e Craig five. 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 will hear example of Colorado baker who refused to make nuptials cake for same-sex activity couple". The Los Angeles Times . Retrieved June 26, 2017.
  5. ^ a b c Brutal, 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 block. Volition he say no?". Christian Science Monitor. December vii, 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'south Final Order". June 2, 2014.
  9. ^ Roberts, Roxanne (November 30, 2017). "Wedding cakes tin can be stunning creations. But practise they qualify as art?". The Washington Post . 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. 16-111". Supreme Courtroom of the United States . Retrieved 16 Apr 2017.
  12. ^ de Faddy, Ariane; Diaz, Daniella (June 25, 2017). "Supreme Court agrees to hear religious liberty case next term". CNN . Retrieved June 25, 2017.
  13. ^ a b Wolf, Richard (November two, 2017). "Complimentary oral communication five. same-sex marriage example floods high court". USA Today . Retrieved November 14, 2017.
  14. ^ a b c d due east Howe, Amy (September 11, 2017). "Nuptials cakes v. religious beliefs?: In Obviously English". SCOTUSblog . Retrieved September xiv, 2017.
  15. ^ "Brief of Amicus Curiae NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund in Back up of Respondents" (PDF). October 30, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
  16. ^ "Brief amici curiae of Lawyers' Committee for Ceremonious Rights Nether 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 Heart, Chicago Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights, and Mississippi Eye for Justice in Support of Respondents" (PDF). October 30, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
  18. ^ "Brief of Amicus Curiae for the Civil Rights Forum in Support of Respondents" (PDF). Oct thirty, 2017. Retrieved June 26, 2018.
  19. ^ McClain, Linda C. (2019). ""'Male person Chauvinism' Is Under Assault From All Sides at Nowadays": Roberts v. The states Jaycees, Sexual practice Discrimination, and the First Subpoena". Fordham Law Review. 87: 2392. Retrieved 26 Nov 2019.
  20. ^ a b S.M. (September 8, 2017). "The Department of Justice backs a baker who refused to brand a gay wedding cake". The Economist . Retrieved 12 September 2017.
  21. ^ Moreau, Julie (September 11, 2017). "Department of Justice's Gay Rights Brief Slammed by Advocates equally 'License to Discriminate'". NBCNews . Retrieved September eleven, 2017.
  22. ^ "Live Coverage: Supreme Court Hears Same-Sexual practice Nuptials Block Case". The Wall Street Journal. December five, 2017. Retrieved December 5, 2017.
  23. ^ Liptak, Adam (September xvi, 2017). "Cake Is His 'Art.' So Can He Deny One to a Gay Couple?". The New York Times . Retrieved September eighteen, 2017.
  24. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (September 27, 2017). "No matter how you slice it, U.S. jurist Kennedy key vote in block example". Reuters. Retrieved September 27, 2017.
  25. ^ Howe, Amy (7 December 2017). "Argument analysis: Conservative majority leaning toward ruling for Colorado bakery (UPDATED)". SCOTUSblog. Retrieved vii December 2017. With Kennedy seemingly property the key vote, the couple and their supporters at kickoff seemed to take reason to be optimistic.
  26. ^ Hurley, Lawrence (September 27, 2017). "No matter how you slice it, U.Southward. jurist Kennedy primal vote in block case". Reuters. Retrieved February 7, 2018.
  27. ^ Slip op., pp. two-iii, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Committee, case no. sixteen-111, U.Due south. Supreme Court (June 4, 2018).
  28. ^ Pavich, Katie (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Courtroom Overwhelmingly Rules in Favor of Colorado Baker in Wedding ceremony Block Case". Townhall . Retrieved June four, 2018.
  29. ^ Volokh, Eugene (June 4, 2018). "The Masterpiece Cakeshop Conclusion Leaves Almost All the Big Questions Unresolved". Reason . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
  30. ^ Rubin, Jennifer (June iv, 2018). "In baker'south case, neither side has much reason to rejoice". The Washington Post . Retrieved June iv, 2018.
  31. ^ Sherman, Marking (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Courtroom rules in favor of Colorado baker who wouldn't make same-sex activity wedding cake". chicagotribune.com . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
  32. ^ Sheppard, Ilya (June four, 2018). "Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling Tastes Good, Simply Is Empty Calories". The Cato Establish . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
  33. ^ Epps, Garrett (June four, 2018). "Justice Kennedy'south Masterpiece Ruling". The Atlantic . Retrieved June iv, 2018.
  34. ^ a b c d due east Liptak, Adam (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Court Sides With Colorado Baker Who Turned Abroad Gay Couple". The New York Times. Archived from the original on May 13, 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, case no. sixteen-111, U.S. Supreme Court (June 4, 2018)
  37. ^ Liptak, Adam (June 4, 2018). "Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved June iv, 2018.
  38. ^ Professor of constitutional law at the Academy of Baltimore Garrett Epps. "Ideas: Justice Kennedy'south 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 4, 2018). "Masterpiece: The Supreme Court's Colorado baker determination 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 Courtroom Reaffirms Core Anti-Discrimination Principles in Masterpiece Cakeshop Example". NAACP Legal Defence force and Educational Fund. NAACP Legal Defence force and Educational Fund. June 4, 2018. Archived from the original on September 14, 2018.
  41. ^ "Supreme Courtroom rules narrowly for Colorado baker who wouldn't make aforementioned-sexual practice nuptials cake". Reuters. June iv, 2018. Retrieved June 4, 2018 – via CBS News.
  42. ^ Barnes, Robert (June four, 2018). "Supreme Court rules in favor of baker who would not brand wedding cake for gay couple". The Washington Post . Retrieved June 4, 2018.
  43. ^ Brush & Neb Studio v. Phoenix , No. 1 CA-CV 16-0602 (Ariz. Ct. App. June 7, 2018).
  44. ^ Johnson, Chris (June seven, 2018). "Courtroom Applies Masterpiece Cakeshop Ruling to Uphold Ariz. LGBT Ordinance". Washington Blade . Retrieved June nine, 2018.
  45. ^ Ring, Trudy (June eight, 2018). "Arizona Courtroom Uses Cakeshop Example to Affirm LGBT Rights". The Advocate . Retrieved June 9, 2018.
  46. ^ Stern, Mark Joseph (June 7, 2018). "Making Sense of Masterpiece Cakeshop". Slate . Retrieved June nine, 2018.
  47. ^ Wolf, Richard (June 25, 2018). "Starting time cake, now flowers: Supreme Courtroom gives florist who refused to serve gay nuptials a new hearing". U.s.a. Today . Retrieved June 25, 2018.
  48. ^ Gutman, David (6 June 2019). "Washington Supreme Courtroom rules once more against Richland florist who refused flowers for gay hymeneals". The Seattle Times . Retrieved 6 June 2019.
  49. ^ State 5. Arlene'due south Flowers, Inc. , __ P.3d __ (Wash. 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 possessor sues Hickenlooper, claiming religious persecution despite Supreme Court ruling". The Denver Post . Retrieved Baronial 16, 2018.
  52. ^ Doubek, James (August 16, 2018). "Colorado Baker Sues State Again, Later on Refusing To Make Cake For Transgender Woman". NPR . Retrieved August 16, 2018.
  53. ^ "Colorado bakery back in court over second LGBTQ bias allegation". Associated Press. Dec 19, 2018. Retrieved Dec xix, 2018 – via NBC News.
  54. ^ Schmelzer, Elise (Jan 7, 2019). "Federal judge denies state's request to dismiss second Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuit". The Denver Mail service . Retrieved January vii, 2019.
  55. ^ Foody, Kathleen (March five, 2019). "Colorado, baker stop legal spat over transgender woman'due south cake". Associated Printing. Retrieved March 5, 2019 – via ABC News.
  56. ^ "Third Discrimination Suit Filed Against Masterpiece Cakeshop". June 6, 2019. Retrieved June 11, 2019.
  57. ^ "Jack Phillips back in courtroom for refusing to bake lawyer's transgender 'birthday cake'". www.christianpost.com . Retrieved 2020-04-12 .
  58. ^ Slevin, Colleen (2021-06-xvi). "Colorado baker fined for refusing to brand transgender transition block". CTV News. Associated Press. Archived from the original on June 18, 2021. Retrieved 2021-06-17 .
  59. ^ Liptak, Adam (February 22, 2022). "Supreme Court to Hear Case of Spider web Designer Who Objects to Same-Sex Marriage". The New York Times . Retrieved Feb 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). "Just Desserts?: Public Accommodations, Religious Accommodations, Racial Equality, and Gay Rights". Supreme Court Review. 2018: 145–177. doi:x.1086/702248. ISSN 0081-9557. S2CID 201399045.
  • Leslie Kendrick & Michah Schwartzman, The Supreme Court, 2022 Term — Comment: The Etiquette of Counterinsurgency, 132 Harv. 50. Rev. 133 (2018)
  • Laycock, Douglas (2017). "The Hymeneals-Vendor Cases" (PDF). Harvard Periodical of Police & Public Policy. 41 (1): 49–66.
  • Murray, Melissa (1 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 ane

External links [edit]

  • Text of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Committee, 584 U.S. ___ (2018) is available from:Justia Oyez (oral statement sound) Supreme Courtroom (skid opinion)
  • Example folio at SCOTUSblog

colemandaunded.blogspot.com

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

0 Response to "Masterpiece Cakeshop Colorado Civil Rights Commission Again"

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

Iklan Atas Artikel

Iklan Tengah Artikel 1

Iklan Tengah Artikel 2

Iklan Bawah Artikel