Search

What are the consequences of religious exemptions of antidiscrimination laws? And what are the normative implications of these consequences? These questions are currently at the center of a heated debate balancing religious freedom and civil rights. Opponents of religious exemptions from antidiscrimination laws argue that granting exemptions would increase sexual orientation discrimination. Proponents of religious exemptions argue that religious objectors are a small minority and that their exemption would not meaningfully increase discrimination against same-sex couples. The troubling aspect of this debate is that none of the parties rely on hard data. Particularly missing are data on the effects of exemptions granted in Supreme Court decisions, an issue that the Court has addressed repeatedly in recent years--and is set to do so once again this term, in Fulton v. City of Philadelphia. This Article intervenes in the debate based on the results of a large-scale field experiment that measured the effect of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on the ability of same-sex couples to receive services in the wedding market, as compared to opposite-sex couples. The field experiment revealed that after Masterpiece Cakeshop, vendors were less willing to provide wedding services to same-sex couples than to opposite-sex couples. This trend was true even for vendors that provided services to same-sex couples prior to the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision. Following Masterpiece Cakeshop, the odds that same-sex couples would experience discrimination from wedding vendors are estimated to be between 61% and 85%. These results have several implications for the debate on religious exemptions. First, they discredit the argument that the effects of religious exemptions are negligible, making clear that exemptions will promote further discrimination. Second, the results complicate the conventional portrait of religious objection as fixed (and therefore unyielding to change), showing instead that the demand for discrimination is elastic and shaped by social constructions, even without coercion or sanctions. These negative effects of Masterpiece Cakeshop bear on both litigation--showing that antidiscrimination laws are necessary to further states' compelling interest in securing equality--and in legislation--providing guidance for legislatures on whether and how to enact religious exemptions from antidiscrimination laws. Finally, the troubling consequences of Masterpiece Cakeshop require the Supreme Court to proceed with great care as it sets out to decide Fulton v. City of Philadelphia and any other future cases raising ostensible conflicts between religion and anti-discrimination law. However the Court decides to resolve the constitutional issue at hand, it must take into account that even a deliberately narrow and case-specific exemption might have a significant negative impact on the market and its customers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which had its first chance to resolve the religious exemption question vis-à-vis sexual orientation discrimination. It mentions First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and speech exempted him from the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act (CADA). It also mentions race analogy question for every LGBT-rights claim.

The article focuses on the U.S. Supreme Court's struggle with corporate identity through an in-depth look at the Justices' papers in First Amendment cases over the past forty years. It mentions decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on refusing to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple violated the state's antidiscrimination law. It also mentions objections to the enforcement of state antidiscrimination laws.

The article informs that in case "State v. Arlene's Flowers Inc." Washington Supreme Court, on remand in light of the Supreme Court's decision in case "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission," held that Masterpiece's prohibition on religious hostility only applies to the conduct of adjudicatory bodies. It reports how same-sex couples and wedding-service providers have clashed over the proper relationship between First Amendment rights and nondiscrimination statutes.

The article focuses on a book "Who's the Bigot? Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law" by Linda C. McClain. It mentions disputes on same-sex marriages, including religious exemptions to antidiscrimination laws as exemplified in U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It also mentions constructive ways to talk about prejudice, intolerance, and discrimination.

The article focuses on a book "Who's the Bigot? Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law" by Linda C. McClain and U.S. Supreme Court decision in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It mentions bigotry in analyzing opposition to gay and lesbian rights and decision of U.S. Supreme Court in the case Obergefell v. Hodges on laws not extending the fundamental right to marry to same-sex couples unconstitutionally denied equal dignity.

The article focuses on temporal dimensions of bigotry and how the invocation of bigotry has manifested in law and U.S. Supreme Court case in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. It mentions how the government must treat the religious beliefs of those opposed to LGBT equality from the question of whether the government can enforce LGBT antidiscrimination law against religious objectors. It also mentions bigotry to insulate current practices of inequality.

The article focuses on the decision of the U.S. Supreme Court in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) makes it a discriminatory practice. It mentions probable cause that Phillips had violated CADA and referred the case to the Civil Rights Commission and commission initiated a formal hearing before an administrative law judge. It also mentions staff training on the Public Accommodations section of CADA.

The article discusses the legal aspects of religious freedom in America in relation to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n which deals with cake designer Jack Phillip's decision to reject a request to create a same-sex marriage wedding cake. It states that the court ruled in Phillip's favor and found that the defendant violated his free exercise of religion rights. Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act is assessed.

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court ruling held in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission wherein a baker refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Topics discussed include the baker's free exercise rights, the antidiscrimination law in the U.S., and the right of same-sex couples to marriage.

Justice Jackson's opinion for the Court in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette1 is deservedly famous. Yet, aspects of it raise more questions than they answer. Barnette is rightly seen as the foundation of the Supreme Court's compelled speech doctrine. But key parts of that doctrine remain under analyzed by the Court. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission2 offered the Court an opportunity to clarify some of these issues. For religious reasons, Jack Phillips refused to provide a custommade cake for the wedding celebration of a gay couple, Charlie Craig and David Mullins. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission determined that this violated state public accommodations anti-discrimination law, and the state court of appeals affirmed. After the state supreme court declined to hear the case, the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari; much of the briefing and oral argument was about whether requiring Phillips to make the cake would amount to unconstitutional compelled expression.3 But the Court resolved the matter on narrower, as-applied, Free Exercise Clause grounds.4 The underlying type of conflict in Cakeshop--between a statutorily protected class of persons and providers of services who claim a set of First Amendment objections to providing such services--is not going away any time soon, however, 5 and thus it is fruitful to explore the issues from the Barnette line of cases, as refracted through cases such as Cakeshop. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission wherein the defendant ruled that the plaintiff violated the anti-discrimination law for refusing to make a wedding cake for a gay couple due to religious beliefs. Topics discussed include the plaintiff's rights to free exercise, the defendant's lack of religious neutrality, and the decision held in the case State of Washington v. Arlene's Flowers Inc.

The article discusses the legal rights of minorities in relation to the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in the 2018 case Masterpience Cakeshop v. Colorado Human Rights Commission which deals with religious freedom, antidiscrimination law, and the rights of LGBTQ persons in America. The U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and the doctrine of unconstitutional animus are examined, along with the legal rights of business owner Jack Phillips who refused to make a same-sex wedding cake.

The article discusess laws governing state nondiscrimination laws under the U.S. Civil Rights Act of 1964. Topics discussed include comparison of state constitutional free-exercise clauses with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); U.S. Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission addressing conflict between nondiscrimination laws and state RFRA; and role of nondiscrimination laws in protecting discrimination based on sexual orientation.

The article reflects on the legacy of Martha Albertson Fineman's on role of various formative influences on generative scholarship. Topics discussed include problems of feminism and liberalism; vulnerability of discrimination and gender gap; and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and Obergefell v. Hodges addressing anti-discrimination laws.