By agreeing to hear the case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court has set up a potentially major decision on “whether applying Colorado’s public accommodations law to compel the petitioner to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs about marriage violates the free speech or free exercise clauses of the First Amendment. My link-rich Cato post also goes on to discuss the sleeper case of Pavan v. Smith, which offers a glimpse of how a post-Scalia conservative wing may address issues following in the wake of Obergefell.
P.S. More from Erica Goldberg on the hubbub over Gorsuch’s dissent in Pavan.
One Comment
While I support gay marriage and was gay-married myself (but like any self-respecting gay man I baked my own cake), I’m pretty sure the baker will prevail.
It seems to me that cakes are a little different from other public accommodations in that they are artistic creations made especially for a pair of individuals. It would be like trying to compel any other artist to take on a particular commission.
I wonder if the argument will be a narrow one like this, or assert the broader rights of a “business to refuse service to anyone for any reason.” I’d feel differently if this were a local chain supermarket who refused to sell 100 off-the-shelf cupcakes to a gay couple for their wedding.