Constitutional Law (First Amendment)
138 S. Ct. 1719 (2018)
Study notes for Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: professor notes, cold call prep, exam angles, and memory aids.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission's adjudication against Masterpiece Cakeshop violated the Free Exercise Clause due to its lack of religious neutrality.
This case exemplifies the ongoing tension between the First Amendment's protection of free exercise of religion and the enforcement of anti-discrimination laws. Professors would likely emphasize how the Supreme Court's decision signals a heightened scrutiny towards any governmental actions perceived to be hostile to religious beliefs. The Court noted the importance of the state's duty to uphold civil rights, but here it crossed a line by failing to maintain religious neutrality, thus infringing upon Phillips' free exercise rights. Furthermore, the inconsistencies in handling similar cases, where other bakers were allowed to refuse service for non-religious reasons or where the Commission showed leniency, means that the Commission did not apply the law uniformly, raising concerns of an implicit bias against Phillips' religious beliefs.
Cakeshop's Neutrality Niche: Hostility Hurts Religious Rights.
| Case | Distinction |
|---|---|
| Employment Division v. Smith | Smith upheld the application of a neutral law of general applicability (drug use) despite a religious claim, whereas Masterpiece Cakeshop involved specific hostility toward religious beliefs. |
| Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. | Hobby Lobby recognized a business owner's religious rights under the Affordable Care Act, while Masterpiece emphasizes religious neutrality from the state. |
| United States v. Lee | Lee involved a claim of religious freedom but was upheld due to compelling state interests in tax laws, contrasting with the subjective hostility found in Masterpiece. |
Supporting the rule helps protect individuals' rights to their religious beliefs in a diverse society, allowing for a more pluralistic view where both rights can coexist.
Against the rule, one might argue it could permit discrimination under the guise of religious belief, thus undermining the protections intended by anti-discrimination laws.
Exam questions may ask students to analyze the balance between individual religious rights and state anti-discrimination laws, and to apply the precedents set by this case in hypothetical scenarios. Students should be prepared to discuss how the Court's ruling affects future cases involving religious beliefs and state regulations.