Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

In July 2012, Jack Phillips, owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Colorado, refused to create a custom wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple, citing his Christian religious beliefs. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled that Phillips had violated the state's anti-discrimination law. Phillips appealed, arguing that compelling him to create the cake infringed upon his First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. The case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which on June 4, 2018, ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips on narrow grounds. The Court found that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had displayed impermissible hostility toward Phillips' religious convictions during its proceedings, violating the state's duty of religious neutrality. The ruling reversed the lower court's decision but did not resolve the broader constitutional question of whether businesses can refuse services to same-sex couples based on religious objections.

The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Colorado Court of Appeals' ruling in a 7-2 decision. The majority, led by Justice Anthony Kennedy, held that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's treatment of Phillips' case was not religiously neutral, as commissioners had made disparaging comments about his faith. However, the Court explicitly declined to issue a sweeping ruling on whether religious objections grant businesses a constitutional right to refuse service to same-sex couples under anti-discrimination laws.

Whether the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment by showing hostility to Jack Phillips' religious beliefs. Whether applying the state's public accommodations law to compel a cake artist to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex wedding violates the Free Speech Clause by forcing expression.

The narrowly tailored ruling avoided setting a broad precedent, leaving the core tension between religious liberty and LGBTQ+ non-discrimination protections unresolved. It underscored the requirement of governmental neutrality toward religion and intensified public debate. Both sides viewed the outcome as a temporary pause, leading to further litigation in similar cases, such as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. The decision fueled ongoing social and legislative battles over balancing equal rights and religious freedom in the United States.