SCOTUS Cooks Up Justice for Colorado Baker

SCOTUS Cooks Up Justice for Colorado Baker
The View from the Middle

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) decided yesterday in favor of Jack Phillips and his Masterpiece Cakeshop business in a resounding 7-2 decision with liberal judges Breyer and Kagen voting with conservative judges Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Gorsuch and Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion. Before I get into the facts of the case and the decision, I would like to offer honorary memberships in “The View From the Middle” to all the Justices for coming up with a decision that I believe struck a perfect balance.

In 2012 a gay couple approached Jack Phillips to create a wedding cake for their wedding reception. They were being married in Massachusetts because gay marriage was not legal in Colorado and the time but were planning their reception in Denver. Phillips informed them that he was willing to sell the couple ordinary cakes, cookies or brownies, but he saw his wedding cakes as an expression of his faith and that creating this cake would be seen as an endorsement of same sex marriage.

Jack was a devout Christian and held sincere religious beliefs and convictions. He believed that being forced to produce this cake violated his first amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of his religion. His business was named “Masterpiece Cakeshop” for a reason. Wedding cakes are more than just taste treats to Jack.

The Colorado Civil Rights Commission disagreed. They ruled that Jack Phillips’ actions were tantamount to discrimination against the gay couple and a violation of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), amended in 2007 and 2008 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They suggested that Mr. Phillips actions violated the “public accommodation” clause in CADA. This clause says that no one can be denied, “full and equal enjoyment of goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages or accommodation of a place of public accommodation.”

This is where the basic problem erupted. What do you do when two fundamental rights come into conflict? And this is where the Colorado Civil Rights Commission made two fatal errors, at least according to Justice Kennedy. First, they totally denied Jack Phillips his protected right to free expression of his religious faith. In fact, one commissioner suggested that, “Phillips can believe whatever he wants, but he cannot act on his religious beliefs if he decides to do business in (Colorado)”.

Second, the Commission was openly hostile to Mr. Phillips’ religious convictions. At one of their meetings, one of the commissioners actually compared Mr. Phillips convictions and refusal to bake this particular cake to the institution of slavery and the Nazis execution of the Holocaust. WOW! He went on to say that freedom of religion, “is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to – to use their religion to hurt others”. Can I say WOW again?

I think Justice Kennedy really nailed it in his opinion. First, he suggested that in one sense, this was a narrow decision. To quote Kennedy, “cases like these…must await further elaboration in the courts.” Not every future case will include the hostility projected by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission to Jack Phillips’ sincere religious beliefs. Their disregard for his rights bordered on absurdity, especially when you consider the task, even duty, of that Commission.

But in another sense, this case will have a broad impact. This opinion will be used as a reference and precedent in every future case that involves the free exercise of a person’s religious rights. It will also discourage groups, particularly the LGBT community, from “targeting” bakers, florists, wedding planners and more whom they know have these strongly held religious beliefs. This 7-2 decision will send a message that cases that used to be seen as “slam dunks” may even be viewed as frivolous in the future. In the minority opinion, even Justice Ginsburg hedged her bets. The first line of Ginsberg’s opinion stated, “There is much in the Court’s (majority) opinion with which I agree.”

Finally, I believe Justice Kennedy struck the perfect balance of justice and civil rights in the final paragraph of his opinion. He said, “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.” Nailed it. A real View From the Middle.