138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018)
Masterpiece Cakeshop sits at the intersection of religious liberty and public accommodations law, testing how the Free Exercise Clause operates in a commercial context governed by anti-discrimination statutes. Rather than announcing a broad right of businesses to refuse services involving same-sex weddings, the Supreme Court resolved the dispute on narrow, procedural grounds: the state adjudicator exhibited hostility toward the baker's religious beliefs, undermining the neutrality that the Free Exercise Clause requires.
Did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violate the Free Exercise Clause by adjudicating the application of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to Masterpiece Cakeshop with hostility to the owner's religious beliefs and by treating comparable cases inconsistently?
Under Employment Division v. Smith, neutral and generally applicable laws that incidentally burden religious exercise ordinarily do not violate the Free Exercise Clause. However, Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah requires that government decisionmakers remain neutral and not hostile toward religion. Adjudicative bodies must avoid statements or actions reflecting religious animus and must treat comparable cases alike. Where enforcement exhibits hostility or disparate treatment of analogous conduct, the Free Exercise Clause is violated and the state must, at a minimum, satisfy heightened scrutiny; the application of the law cannot stand.
Yes. The Commission's proceedings lacked the religious neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause, as evidenced by hostile statements about religion and inconsistent treatment of analogous cases. The Court reversed the judgment against Masterpiece Cakeshop.
Masterpiece Cakeshop is a process-based Free Exercise decision that signals two key points for cases at the religion-commerce boundary: (1) anti-discrimination laws covering public accommodations remain valid and important, including protections for LGBTQ customers, and (2) adjudicators must enforce such laws without religious animus and with consistency across analogous situations. The ruling does not create a general right for businesses to refuse services for same-sex weddings; instead, it polices government neutrality. For students, the case is an essential complement to Smith and Lukumi and a precursor to later decisions. It foreshadows questions later addressed in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia (free exercise and individualized exemptions) and 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (compelled speech in custom expressive services). On exams, be prepared to separate (a) facial validity and general applicability of the statute, (b) neutrality of enforcement and adjudication, and (c) distinct compelled speech arguments.