Masterpiece Cakeshop: The Ruling, the Split, and the Second Case

The Masterpiece Cakeshop lawsuit began in July 2012, when Charlie Craig and David Mullins walked into a Lakewood, Colorado bakery to order a cake for their wedding reception and owner Jack Phillips refused, citing his religious opposition to same-sex marriage. The couple filed a discrimination complaint under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, won at every level of state review, and lost 7–2 at the U.S. Supreme Court in June 2018. The Court’s ruling was narrow: it faulted the Colorado Civil Rights Commission for showing religious hostility toward Phillips rather than deciding whether a baker has a constitutional right to refuse.¹

How the Case Started

Craig and Mullins planned to marry in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriage was legal at the time, and hold a reception back in Colorado.² When they visited Masterpiece Cakeshop with Craig’s mother, Phillips told them he would not create wedding cakes for same-sex marriages but offered to sell them other baked goods such as birthday cakes, cookies, and brownies. Craig’s mother called Phillips the next day, and he explained that his refusal was rooted in his religious beliefs and noted that Colorado did not then recognize same-sex marriages.³

In September 2012, the couple filed a discrimination complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division.⁴ Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, known as CADA, bars public accommodations from refusing service based on sexual orientation. The legislature added sexual orientation to the list of protected classes in 2007.⁵

The State Ruled Against Phillips

The Civil Rights Division found probable cause and referred the case to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. An administrative law judge ruled for the couple, rejecting Phillips’s First Amendment defenses on the grounds that CADA was a valid and neutral law of general applicability. The Commission affirmed on May 30, 2014, ordering Phillips to stop discriminating, train his staff on CADA, and file quarterly compliance reports for two years.²

The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s order in August 2015, and the Colorado Supreme Court declined review in April 2016. Phillips’s lawyers at Alliance Defending Freedom then petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court.⁴

The Two First Amendment Claims

Phillips raised two constitutional arguments. On free speech, he argued that designing a custom wedding cake was inherently expressive and that Colorado was compelling him to communicate a message celebrating same-sex marriage.⁶ On free exercise, he argued that the state was singling out his religious beliefs rather than applying CADA neutrally.⁷

Colorado and the couple’s ACLU lawyers responded that CADA is a neutral, generally applicable law that guarantees equal access to the marketplace, and that carving out religious exemptions for business owners would stigmatize same-sex couples and threaten civil rights protections beyond the LGBTQ context.⁸

What the Supreme Court Decided

On June 4, 2018, the Court ruled 7–2 for Phillips in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote the majority opinion.⁹

The ruling did not decide whether a baker can refuse to make a same-sex wedding cake on free speech or free exercise grounds. Instead, Kennedy focused on how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had handled the case. He found “clear and impermissible hostility” toward Phillips’s religious beliefs. One commissioner had compared religious objections to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust, calling the invocation of faith “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” No other commissioner objected to those remarks.³

Kennedy also pointed to disparate treatment. The Commission had allowed other bakers to decline orders for cakes carrying anti-gay messages while refusing to extend the same consideration to Phillips. He acknowledged the case raised “difficult questions” about reconciling anti-discrimination protections with First Amendment freedoms but declined to answer them. He also cautioned that any religious exception could not be allowed to “impose a serious stigma on gay persons.”¹

How the Justices Split

Justice Kagan, joined by Justice Breyer, concurred and emphasized that anti-discrimination laws must be applied consistently. Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justice Alito, went further, arguing the Commission had punished Phillips for his religious convictions by drawing artificial distinctions between his case and the other bakers’ refusals. Justice Thomas, joined by Gorsuch, wrote separately to argue that forcing Phillips to design the cake would violate the compelled-speech doctrine.³

Justice Ginsburg, joined by Justice Sotomayor, dissented. She argued the commissioners’ remarks did not undermine the proceedings and that the other bakers’ cases were fundamentally different: those bakers refused to create cakes bearing specific anti-gay messages, while Phillips refused to serve a same-sex couple at all. She would have upheld the state’s order.³

Craig and Mullins called the ruling “devastating” but noted that CADA remained “in full force.” Craig said the six-year fight had been worthwhile for sparking a national conversation, adding, “This is not an isolated incident.”¹⁰

The Big Question the Ruling Left Open

Because the decision turned on the Commission’s conduct, the underlying constitutional question about wedding vendors and same-sex couples went unresolved. That question was answered five years later in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (2023), which involved Lorie Smith, a Colorado graphic designer who wanted to create custom wedding websites but objected to designing them for same-sex couples. Alliance Defending Freedom represented Smith, just as it had Phillips.⁴

The Supreme Court ruled 6–3 that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from using its public accommodations law to compel Smith to create expressive content celebrating same-sex marriages. Justice Gorsuch wrote for the majority that Smith’s custom websites were “pure speech” and that the state could not “conscript” her into expressing messages she opposed.¹¹ The majority said the ruling was limited to “original, customized” expressive services and did not authorize identity-based discrimination. Dissenting justices argued that the decision created a right to discriminate regardless of how the majority framed it.¹²

Phillips’s Second Case

Phillips’s legal troubles did not end with the 2018 ruling. In 2017, while the first case was still pending, attorney Autumn Scardina requested a pink cake with blue frosting from Masterpiece Cakeshop to celebrate her gender transition. Phillips again refused on religious grounds.¹³

Scardina filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which reached a confidential settlement with Phillips in 2019 without her participation. Scardina then filed her own lawsuit in Denver state court. A trial judge ruled in her favor in 2021, awarding a symbolic $1 judgment, and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in 2023.¹⁴

On October 8, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court reversed and dismissed the case. Writing for the majority, Justice Melissa Hart held that Scardina lacked standing because she had not exhausted her administrative remedies; the proper path was to appeal the Commission’s settlement rather than file in district court.¹⁵ The court did not reach the discrimination or First Amendment questions.¹⁶ Justice Richard Gabriel dissented, joined by two colleagues, arguing the majority effectively denied Scardina any legal remedy.¹⁴

Where the Law Stands Now

Read together, Masterpiece Cakeshop and 303 Creative draw a line between custom expressive work and ordinary commercial products. A business that produces original, customized expression can refuse to create content celebrating a message it opposes, as long as it would refuse that message for any customer rather than refusing to serve customers because of who they are.¹⁷ Public accommodations laws still apply to off-the-shelf goods and standard services, and states enforcing them must remain neutral toward the objector’s religion, the specific failure the Supreme Court identified in Phillips’s case.

Phillips continues to operate Masterpiece Cakeshop. Craig and Mullins have remained public advocates for LGBTQ civil rights protections. The line between protected expression and unlawful discrimination continues to be tested in courts around the country.¹⁸

1
Justia US Supreme Court Center. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
2
ACLU of Colorado. Masterpiece Cakeshop
3
Supreme Court of the United States. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Opinion
4
Alliance Defending Freedom. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
5
Rocky Mountain Law. Colorado Employment Law Class Materials
6
American Bar Association. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
7
SCOTUSblog. Symposium: Disentangling Free Speech and Freedom of Religion in Masterpiece Cakeshop
8
National Constitution Center. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
9
Oyez. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
10
NPR. Same-Sex Couple Reacts to Supreme Court Decision in Favor of Baker
11
Supreme Court of the United States. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Opinion
12
Yale Law Journal. We Do No Such Thing: 303 Creative v. Elenis and the Future of First Amendment Challenges to Public Accommodations Laws
13
Courthouse News Service. Colorado Supreme Court Tosses Trans Woman’s Cake Case Against Christian Baker
14
NBC News. Colorado Court Dismisses Suit Against Baker Who Wouldn’t Make Transgender-Themed Cake
15
Justia Law. In re Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.
16
First Amendment Encyclopedia. Colorado Supreme Court Dismisses Suit Against Baker Who Wouldn’t Make Cake for Transgender Woman
17
ACLU. What the 303 Creative Decision Means and Doesn’t Mean for Anti-Discrimination and Public Accommodation Laws
18
Movement Advancement Project. Religious Exemptions