This site is a developmental version of Wiki Law School. To go to the production site: www.wikilawschool.org

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado: Difference between revisions

From wikilawschool.net. Wiki Law School does not provide legal advice. For educational purposes only.
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 10: Line 10:
Colorado's anti-discrimination law prohibited discrimination on the basis of romantic orientation.
Colorado's anti-discrimination law prohibited discrimination on the basis of romantic orientation.
|procedural_history=The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the [https://ccrd.colorado.gov/ccrd-home/regulatory-information/colorado-civil-rights-commission Colorado Civil Rights Commission] ("Colorado").
|procedural_history=The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the [https://ccrd.colorado.gov/ccrd-home/regulatory-information/colorado-civil-rights-commission Colorado Civil Rights Commission] ("Colorado").
Cakeshop loses in the trial court & Colorado Court of Appeals.
|arguments=Cakeshop argued that serving a wedding cake to the same-sex couple would violate his rights under the [[1st Amendment]].
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|case_text_links={{Infobox Case Brief/Case Text Link
|link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111
|link=https://www.oyez.org/cases/2017/16-111

Revision as of 14:04, June 30, 2023

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado
Court Supreme Court of the United States
Citation
Date decided June 4, 2018

Facts

Mr. Phillip operated Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. (defendant "Cakeshop") in Colorado. In 2012, a same-sex couple tried to order a wedding cake rom the Cakeshop.

Cakeshop refused to sell a cake to the same-sex couple a wedding cake.

Colorado's anti-discrimination law prohibited discrimination on the basis of romantic orientation.

Procedural History

The same-sex couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ("Colorado").

Cakeshop loses in the trial court & Colorado Court of Appeals.

Arguments

Cakeshop argued that serving a wedding cake to the same-sex couple would violate his rights under the 1st Amendment.

Case Text Links