Religious Beliefs and Discrimination: an analysis of 303 Creative LLC. v Elenis

By: Isabel Machlab

Edited By: Clark Mahoney and william tong

In summer 2012, Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins entered Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, looking for a cake for their upcoming wedding.[1] There, they met the owner and baker, Jack Phillips, who told them that he didn’t make wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious beliefs. He explained that he would sell them other baked goods for other events, but not for a same-sex wedding. The couple filed a complaint against the bakery to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for violating the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), a law that prohibits discrimination by interprises that provide goods to the public.[2][3] The Commission ordered the case to be heard by a state Administrative Law Judge. The judge ruled in favor of the couple, and the ruling was upheld by the Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals.

When the Supreme Court of the United States accepted the case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. (2018) for an official hearing, many people expected the outcome to dictate the government’s stance on the debate between protecting same-sex marriages and protecting the rights of religious individuals.[4] In fact, Justice Kennedy stated that the case brought  to question two important and oftentimes conflicting topics. He wrote, “the first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.”

The court, avoiding the debate, ruled that the Commission did not apply the First Amendment in a just manner. During the initial hearings, members of the state Civil Rights Commission contended that religious beliefs can’t exist in the public – an assertion that is inconsistent with the First Amendment's protection of religion. Justice Kennedy cited “hostility” toward religion that discredited the ruling as a whole. In the end, the court reversed the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals and ordered that “the outcomes of cases like this in other circumstances must await further elaboration in the courts.”

On December 5, the US Supreme Court began to revisit very similar topics that were on the table during the 2018 case. Although the case is slightly different, the same Colorado law is being looked at. This case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, asks many of the same questions that were asked during Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.

303 Creative LLC is a service that provides marketing and website design services to businesses and individuals.[5] The founder, Lorie Smith, is a devout Christian who does not support same-sex marriages. In 2016, she wanted to post a message on her company’s website informing customers that she wouldn’t provide website services for same-sex weddings because of her religious beliefs. Publishing such a message is illegal under CADA, so 303 Creative filed a pre-enforcement challenge arguing that CADA is unconstitutional.[6][7] The court opinion explains:

“Appellants alleged a variety of constitutional violations, including that CADA’s Accommodation Clause and Communication Clause violated the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment, and that CADA’s Communication Clause violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because it was facially overbroad and vague.” 

Both of these cases ask, “Does a business have a constitutional right to discriminate based on its owner’s beliefs?” [8] The second case, however, is different because it questions the constitutionality of a law that protects against discrimination – more specifically discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

Another question that this raises – one that has been raised time and time again – is a question regarding contradicting rights. In these two cases, both plaintiffs felt that their religious rights were being taken away. The way in which they want to exercise their religious beliefs, however, strips LGBTQ+ customers of their own protected rights. It boils down to the idea that the identity of one American is contradictory to the religious belief of another. So, should the government be able to protect the right to exercise a religious belief if that exertion violates the constitutional right of another?  Furthermore, does the government have the legal and moral responsibility to prevent discrimination based on religion, and when – if ever – would that violate the first amendment right to freedom of religion?

When the Supreme Court heard Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission in 2018, they did not make a ruling that answered these questions. Because the Supreme Court accepted 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis – a case that looks at similar questions – it is possible that there will be a more definitive answer. Additionally, the Supreme Court has more conservative justices today than in 2018. All in all, with a larger majority and the court's acceptance of a case that is nearly identical to the one heard four years ago, it is likely that we will see a ruling that gives an answer to the questions at hand.

If the Supreme Court’s decision sets precedent, it will have a resonating effect across the country. There are currently many efforts to strip away rights from LGBTQ+ Americans. According to the Human Rights Campaign, there have been “more than 300 anti-LGBTQ+ bills introduced in states across the country.”[9] Twenty-three states have introduced these bills, and thirteen have signed them into law. Although this decision won’t hold binding legal precedent on many of these bills, it will signal what values define the current court and what values are being upheld in the American legal system today.

NOTES:

1. Masterpiece Cakeshop, LTD., Et Al. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Et Al. 584 U.S. 4 2018

2. “About Us | Colorado Civil Rights Division.” Accessed November 8, 2022. 

3. One Colorado. “Discrimination.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://one-colorado.org/lgbtq-resources/anti-discrimination-laws-colorado/.

4. “In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple.” Liptak, The New York Times, June 4, 2018, sec. U.S. 

5. “303 Creative – 303 Creative.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://303creative.com/.

6. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 19-1413, 2021 D.C. No. 1:16-CV-02372-MSK-CBS

7. “Supreme Court Report: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476,” Schweitzer

8. “Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commision,” Chemerinsky

9. “United Against Hate – Flighting Back on State Legislative Attacks on LGBTQ+ People,” Human Rights Campaign

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. (2018), 59.

“303 Creative – 303 Creative.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://303creative.com/.

“About Us | Colorado Civil Rights Division.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://ccrd.colorado.gov/about-us.

Hasan, Zayn. “Supreme Court Report: 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476.” National Association of Attorneys General, March 9, 2022. https://www.naag.org/attorney-general-journal/supreme-court-report-303-creative-llc-v-elenis-21-476/.

Human Rights Campaign. “The State Legislative Attack On LGBTQ+ People.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://www.hrc.org/campaigns/the-state-legislative-attack-on-lgbtq-people.

Liptak, Adam. “In Narrow Decision, Supreme Court Sides With Baker Who Turned Away Gay Couple.” The New York Times, June 4, 2018, sec. U.S. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/04/us/politics/supreme-court-sides-with-baker-who-turned-away-gay-couple.html.

“Not a Masterpiece: The Supreme Court’s Decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-ongoing-challenge-to-define-free-speech/not-a-masterpiece/.

One Colorado. “Discrimination.” Accessed November 8, 2022. https://one-colorado.org/lgbtq-resources/anti-discrimination-laws-colorado/.

Wolpert, Christopher M. “UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS July 26, 202,” n.d., 103.