Court seems divided over religious right not to sell cake for same-sex wedding

Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake in his Masterpiece Cakeshop Sept. 21 in Lakewood, Colo. The Supreme Court was set to hear oral arguments Dec. 5 in the case of the baker who cited religious freedom in his refusal to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. (CNS photo/Rick Wilking, Reuters)Baker Jack Phillips decorates a cake in his Masterpiece Cakeshop Sept. 21 in Lakewood, Colo. The Supreme Court was set to hear oral arguments Dec. 5 in the case of the baker who cited religious freedom in his refusal to design a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. (CNS photo/Rick Wilking, Reuters)

WASHINGTON (CNS)—The U.S. Supreme Court seemed equally divided in the long-anticipated oral arguments Dec. 5 about the baker who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of his religious beliefs.

Even Justice Anthony Kennedy’s comments went right down the middle, from expressing concern for those who would be shut out of services to later stressing that “tolerance is a two-way street” and saying the state of Colorado, where the bakery is located, seemed to be “neither tolerant or respectful” of the baker’s views.


The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, pits anti-discrimination laws against freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression.

It drew strong feelings on both sides long before the court heard the arguments with the filing of 100 friend-of-the-court briefs months ago, and the crowds lined up for days hoping to get into the court during the arguments. Crowds also gathered on the Supreme Court steps under cloudy skies and warm temperatures, chanting and holding aloft placards such as “Justice for Jack” (the baker) and “Open for All.”

The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops filed a friend-of-the court brief in support of the baker, joined by the Colorado Catholic Conference, Catholic Bar Association, Catholic Medical Association, National Association of Catholic Nurses-USA and National Catholic Bioethics Center.

The U.S Conference of Catholic Bishops filed a friend-of-the court brief in support of the baker,

And after the hour and a half of oral arguments, chairmen of three U.S.C.C.B. committees issued a statement saying: “America has the ability to serve every person while making room for valid conscientious objection.”

It also said it hoped the court would continue to “preserve the ability of people to live out their faith in daily life, regardless of their occupation,” noting that artists “deserve to have the freedom to express ideas—or to decline to create certain messages—in accordance with their deeply held beliefs.”

The statement was issued by Archbishop Joseph E. Kurtz of Louisville, Kentucky, chairman of the Committee for Religious Liberty; Philadelphia Archbishop Charles J. Chaput, chairman of the Committee on Laity, Marriage, Family Life and Youth; and Bishop James D. Conley of Lincoln, Nebraska, chairman of the Subcommittee for the Promotion and Defense of Marriage.

The case before the court at the end of 2017 was five years in the making, beginning in 2012 when Charlie Craig and David Mullins asked the Colorado baker, Jack Phillips, to make a cake for their wedding reception. Mr. Phillips refused, saying his religious beliefs would not allow him to create a cake honoring their marriage.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which decided the baker’s action violated state law. The decision was upheld by the Colorado Court of Appeals. The Colorado Supreme Court wouldn’t take the case, letting the ruling stand. The U.S. Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

During oral arguments at the high court, many questions came up about what constitutes speech, since the baker claimed he should have freedom of speech protection.

Justice Elena Kagan asked if a florist, chef or makeup artist also should have the same protection.

Justice Elena Kagan asked if a florist, chef or makeup artist also should have the same protection and other roles also were called into question such as tailors, or invitation designers, as were other cakes; pre-made cakes, for example, would not be an issue of compelled speech.

And as Kristen Waggoner, the Alliance Defending Freedom attorney representing Phillips, said “not all cakes would be considered speech.”

Amid the back and forth between what could be considered artistry and questions about how artists could be compelled to convey messages they disagree with, Justice Stephen G. Breyer asked: “Well, then, what is the line? That’s what everybody is trying to get at.”

“Obviously, we want a distinction that will not undermine every single civil rights law,” he added.

“What is the line? That’s what everybody is trying to get at.”

The bulk of the defense for the baker focused on his freedom of speech rights, which attorneys argued would be violated by forcing him to make this cake.

Ms. Waggoner said the court was saying it had the discretion to decide what speech is offensive and what isn’t, but it didn’t “apply that in a fair way to Mr. Phillips.” She also said that “what’s deeply concerning” is how speech could be compelled of “filmmakers, oil painters and graphic designers in all kinds of context.”

The arguments against the baker questioned if failing to provide services to same-sex couples was discriminatory.

David Cole, a lawyer for the American Civil Liberties Union, defending the couple, said discrimination against the couple who wanted the cake consigned them to “second-class status.”

The last minutes of the oral arguments boiled down to the opposing views but also didn’t reveal a clear path forward.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the nation’s views about interracial marriages “didn't change on its own” but because of “public accommodation laws that forced people to do things that many claimed were against their expressive rights and against their religious rights."

“Whatever it is you choose to sell, you have to sell it to everyone who knocks on your door, if you open your door to everyone,” she added.

In response, Ms. Waggoner said it would be a grave offense to the First Amendment to “compel a person who believes that marriage is sacred, to give voice to a different view of marriage and require them to celebrate that marriage.”

Justice Sotomayor suggested not participating in weddings or creating neutral wedding cakes but said that refusing to offer goods to some goes against public anti-discrimination laws.

Ms. Waggoner in her last allotted minute said: “A wedding cake expresses an inherent message that is that the union is a marriage and is to be celebrated, and that message violates Mr. Phillips’ religious convictions.”

Comments are automatically closed two weeks after an article's initial publication. See our comments policy for more.
John Walton
1 year 1 month ago

It's not an issue of "selling" a cake sitting in the fridge of a bakery or grocery, it's to make a custom cake, probably with a decoration of two guys on top. Why not ask the halal lunch-wagon in front of Rock Center to make a BLT.

Robert Klahn
1 year 1 month ago

I have to wonder why you didn't suggest asking a kosher deli to make you a ham and cheese on a bagel.

There is a bakery I know of I am quite convinced would not make a wedding cake for a Muslim wedding if they could get away with it.

Dionys Murphy
1 year 1 month ago

Being able to discriminate who you served based on what you interpret your religion to say is not "religious freedom." It's illegal and immoral discrimination. The KKK used a racist reading of the Bible to justify their hatred, exclusion, bigotry and discrimination. This is no different, no less immoral and no less illegal. Be careful what you ask for. When you make it legal again to discriminate based on an interpretation of your religious tradition, you may find that the next target, as has been in the past, is Catholics by neo-'Evangelicals' who refuse to bake a cake / prepare flowers for / rent space to those 'dirty papists who really worship satan even though they don't know it.' Neo-evangelicals and their dominionist strategies are no friends to Catholicism or Catholics.

Robert Klahn
1 year 1 month ago

My marriage was not legal in many states before 1967, because my wife is black and I am white.

A decision that you can chose who you serve on religious grounds means they could refuse to bake a cake for an inter-racial wedding. I have known people who believed inter-racial marriage was against God's law.

Oh, and my wife is Episcopal and I am Catholic, can they discriminate on that basis?

Do we go back to the segregated lunch counters?

How about, at the least, they have a sign saying who they will serve. So you don't go in and be embarrassed when they refuse you?

Waggoner's Bakery... white heterosexual protestant English language wedding cakes only. No Irish need apply.

Gino Benedetti
1 year 1 month ago

Picture the gay couple walking into the bakery just looking to buy a cake from someone they knew did great work. Picture the baker kindly congratulating the couple and respectfully telling them that his faith precluded him from making them a cake. They all shake hands agreeing to disagree without imposing each one’s view and the other. May be they even silently pray for each other on the spot. That’s the gift of understanding at work without any need for lawyers or judges to get involved.


The latest from america

Native American protestors hold hands with parishioner Nathanial Hall, right, during a group prayer outside the Catholic Diocese of Covington on Jan. 22, 2019, in Covington, Ky. (AP Photo/John Minchillo)
The furor over a chance meeting between Catholic high school students and Native American protesters underscores the need to listen and learn from indigenous voices.
Marlene LangJanuary 23, 2019
The staggering parliamentary defeat for Prime Minister Theresa May, seen here leaving 10 Downing Street on Jan. 23, pushed the country even further from safe dry land. (AP Photo/Alastair Grant)
After the stunning defeat of Theresa May's exit deal, Scotland is looking anew at independence, and the U.K. government fears economic disaster.
David StewartJanuary 23, 2019
Michael Osborne, a film director, documents the damage from a mud slide next to his home in Los Angeles on Jan. 18, after three days of heavy rain. (AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes)
The conceit of California-as-disaster-movie is ridiculous. But maybe watching our fires and mudslides helps other states consider both their own fragility and their underlying strength.
Jim McDermottJanuary 23, 2019
A commitment to religious liberty demands that effort be devoted to resolving, rather than exacerbating, any real or apparent tension between religious obligation and civil duty.
The EditorsJanuary 23, 2019