It reasoned that an outside observer would think that Phillips was merely complying with Colorado’s public-accommodations law, not expressing a message, and that Phillips could post a disclaimer to that effect. First Amendment.

Based on these findings, the Division found probable cause that Phillips violated CADA and referred the case to the Civil Rights Commission. filed. (Response due August 24, 2016). Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be—I mean, we—we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. The Court of Appeals extensively quoted Masterpiece in affirming the Arizona Superior Court's prior decision. Nor would it be proper for this or any court to suggest that a person must be forced to write words rather than create a symbol before his religious faith is implicated. Cf. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, Colorado law does not permit the Commission to assess money damages or fines. Words or not and whatever the exact design, it celebrates a wedding, and if the wedding cake is made for a same-sex couple it celebrates a same-sex wedding. Thus, a person’s “conduct may be ‘sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Before the Colorado Court of Appeals, Phillips protested that this disparity in treatment reflected hostility on the part of the Commission toward his beliefs. Joint motion for divided argument filed by respondents GRANTED. For these reasons, the Court cannot avoid the conclusion that these statements cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case. Applying CADA to the facts at hand, in the ALJ’s view, did not interfere with Phillips’ freedom of speech. Colorado Court of Appeals, Division 1, No. Phillips claimed he did not violate CADA because he did not object to serving all customers regardless of their sexual orientation. There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. [13] The brief was criticized by several organizations, including those that support LGBT rights, claiming the brief as a pattern of hostile actions by the Trump administration and fearing that a decision in favor of Masterpiece would enable such businesses to have a "license to discriminate". [13], Around 100 legal briefs were filed by third parties, roughly equally split in supporting either side of the case. filed. filed. Any other conclusion would invite civil authorities to gerrymander their inquiries based on the parties they prefer. Brief amicus curiae of Sherif Girgis filed. The … The couple filed a charge under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public.” An ALJ ruled in the couple’s favor. As the Court also explains, the only reason the Commission seemed to supply for its discrimination was that it found Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs “offensive.” Ibid.
In defining whether a baker’s creation can be protected, these details might make a difference. P20140071X, at 4; featured “language and images [the baker] deemed hateful,” Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the (Distributed), Brief amici curiae of Floyd Abrams, et al.

Greisen stated they felt the state did not represent Scardina's case well, thus taking action directly. Yet it denied the same accommodation to Mr. Phillips when he refused a customer’s request that would have required him to violate his religious beliefs. That hostility surfaced at the Commission’s formal, public hearings, as shown by the record.
Phillips also sees the inherent symbolism in wedding cakes. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting’s discussion but said far more to disparage Phillips’ beliefs. “[P]urveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons [may not] put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Ante, at 12. The state’s interest could have been weighed against Phillips’ sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality.

filed. 24, 2015); Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. Motion for leave to file amicus brief filed by Foundation For Moral Law. for Cert. By contrast, the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple. Suggesting that this case is only about “wedding cakes”—and not a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex wedding—actually points up the problem. Kennedy found such comparisons "inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law". Only by adjusting the dials just right—fine-tuning the level of generality up or down for each case based solely on the identity of the parties and the substance of their views—can you engineer the Commission’s outcome, handing a win to Mr. Jack’s bakers but delivering a loss to Mr. Phillips. App.