Search

The romantic author trope has been extensively criticized in the copyright context. yet it threatens to emerge as a new pillar of First Amendment compelled speech jurisprudence. Justice Thomas k concurring opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission exemplifies the tropeS rhetorical power and the costs of that approach. Coisting the baker as an artist, Justice Thomas found that creating custom wedding cakes was speech, and that applying a public accommodations law to require service to a same-sex couple triggered strid scrutiny review. This is an extraordinary result. Although the United States Supreme Court never adjudicated fhe compelled speech claim, it will jake up the issile in 303 Creadve 11£ v. Elenis, where the artist owens a website design business. This Article historically contextualizes the romantic author construct, charts its emergence in First Amendment law, and deconstructs the over-heightened autonomy interest it imports into Justice Thomas's concurring opinion in Master\*eec. This idealized speaker lens does substantial work in suggesting a presionptive constitutiorlai violation arising from a law prohibiting discrimination in public Ricing businesses. The trope privileges speaker autonomy and subjectivity to a degree that legilimizes the erasure of customers-and disavows the state k authority in assuring equal access to goods and services. The high-stakes conflict of rights in Masterpiece and similar wedding vendor cases demands context-sensifive analysis, which the transcendent. self-mgarding lens of authorihip obscures. The central claim of this Article is that wedding vendor cases misapply the romantic ideal, exalting subjectivity and expressive autonomy while swallowing the conflicting rights animated by customer interactions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 employment rights, religious freedom claims are being challenged as violations of equality and the Establishment Clause notion that religious reasons cannot justify coercion. It mentions several U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission; Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

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.

In a small set of cases, the Supreme Court has declared that state action motivated by animus toward a politically unpopular group is unconstitutional. An imus was rendered newly relevant by Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. This Article applies the Court's animus doctrine, including Masterpiece, to the Prison Litigation Reform Act (P L R A). The P L R A targets prisoners, who, in the context offederal litigation, are politically unpopular-- if not despised. The P L R A 's legislative history is replete with hostility fo r prisoners and their cases. The P L R A codifies this animus by subjectingprisoners' civil rights actions to unique procedural hurdles. Still, the P L R A 's constitutionality has been assumed. This Article frames Masterpiece as a case about much more than majoritarian religious beliefs. First, it considers Masterpiece's doctrinal significance, comparing it to United States Department of Agriculture v. Moreno, Palmore v. Sidoti, Romer v. Evans, aWUnited States v. Windsor. Second, it demonstrates how Masterpiece broadened animus's reach by relying upon a wider array of animus evidence. Masterpiece found evidence of animus in unlikely sources, such as statements made by individual members of a civil rights commission. Applying Masterpiece, this Article identifies the animus underlying the P L R A, and labels it "procedural animus. '' Procedural animus is hostility which hinders an unpopular group's ability to obtain relief fo r legal wrongs. Masterpiece may extend animus beyond the few contexts in which Justice Kennedy deemed it relevant, reaching as fa r as the P L R A 's punitive procedure. Deploying animus in this fashion is timely: at long last, incarceration is itself suspicious. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As marriage equality becomes fully realized in the United States, business proprietors increasingly refuse to service same-sex weddings on religious grounds. However, at the same time, state laws protect same-sex couples from discrimination in places open to the public. Such competing values have resulted in a line of "wedding vendor" cases. As the cases continue to proliferate, this Note examines when, and to what extent, the otherwise equally important values of free expression and equality should trump one another. This Note analyzes First Amendment compelled speech claims within the line of wedding vendor cases: specifically, whether wedding goods and services are covered by the Free Speech Clause and, if so, what level of scrutiny a court should employ to determine the constitutionality of an antidiscrimination law. This Note demonstrates that patchiness within the compelled speech doctrine and a lack of clear U.S. Supreme Court guidance after Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission have resulted in a "split" approach to resolving these issues. This Note ultimately argues that if the vendors' goods and services rise to the level of sufficiently expressive conduct, then a court should apply intermediate scrutiny to an antidiscrimination law incidentally burdening that conduct. In the alternative, this Note provides a legislative solution to mitigate the tension between religious liberty and equality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Supreme Court's ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission was decided on the narrow ground that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause because of hostility toward the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop. This decision failed to answer a cardinal question of constitutional law, whether or not the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause could undermine nondiscrimination law. In Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion, he seized on one particular comment made by a Commissioner about religious freedom that justified ruling against the Commission for its use of discriminatory rhetoric. According to Justice Kennedy, the Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause by describing religious expression as despicable and as merely rhetorical. In this report, I argue that Justice Kennedy's opinion demands heightened attention for two reasons. First, to describe religious freedom as a justification for prejudice as merely rhetorical is a gross underestimation of the power of rhetoric and provides moral encouragement to anti-LGBTQ+ activists using the legal system to advance a heteronormative agenda. Second, Justice Kennedy's claim that rhetoric is insubstantial and insincere calls into question the role of the Court, the meaning of the law, and the relationship between the law and rhetoric. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Viewed closely and comprehensively, Masterpiece Cakeshop, far from simply being the narrow, shallow, and modest decision many have taken it to be, is a rich, multi-faceted decision that cleaves and binds the parties to the case, carefully managing conflictual crisis. Through a ruling for a faithful custom-wedding-cake baker against a state whose legal processes are held to have been marred by antireligious bias, the Court unfolds a cross-cutting array of constitutional wins and losses for cultural conservatives and traditional moralists, on the one hand, and for lesbians and gay men and their supporters committed to civil and equal rights, on the other. The Court's central anti-religious-discrimination holding doesn't only potentially benefit opponents of such discrimination in other cases. This holding also has boomerang-like tendencies that should make it useful for those who would level antidiscrimination claims on a variety of other grounds. Liberal and progressive audiences might thus reconsider their aversions to the decision for this reason alone. What's more, Masterpiece Cakeshop's "shadow rulings," described in detail here, dole out notable victories to cultural conservatives, traditional moralists, and lesbians and gay men alike. Officially declining to adjudicate the merits of the baker's artistic freedom claim under the First Amendment, the Court's opinion expresses openness and sympathy, but ultimately substantive doubt about it. In these respects, and notwithstanding suggestions to the contrary, Masterpiece Cakeshop is full of substantive lawmaking. Having tracked that lawmaking to its textual limits, analysis turns to the opinion's final passage, which, on one level, importantly recapitulates the opinion's constitutional rulemaking, instructing courts and governmental actors one last time on how to handle cases like this one in the future. On another level, the passage is a compass pointing to lessons in moral politics that the opinion offers to the partisans of the Kulturkampf. One version of the Court's moral-political teaching involves instruction in a moral politics of respect and friendship. This may be practically politically viable, leaving aside whether it will in fact be accepted. A more ambitious version of the opinion's moral-political teaching involves a moral politics of sibling love that's certain to be widely and emphatically rejected. Reconfigured in aesthetic terms, however, the moral politics of sibling love may receive a more nuanced hearing: widely dismissed as an undertaking appropriate for politics, but received with perhaps different sensibilities on an aesthetic plane. If it's presently uncertain and undecidable whether Masterpiece Cakeshop will prove to have been a major legal event, whatever is ultimately made of it, it covers plenty of ground, doing plenty of legal and extra-legal work, in the here and now. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

Throughout the spring of 2018, poised to issue an opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Supreme Court had scholars and advocates on the edges of their seats, wondering how the Court would finally resolve the "clash of rights" cases--or, balance the respondent's Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claims and the petitioner's First Amendment claims. These cases have become a focus in recent years as protections in the marketplace for LGBTQ persons have expanded, particularly in the wedding-vendor context. With the number of cases increasing and lower courts uncertain how to balance two fundamental rights, all eyes were on the high Court to provide guidance. Unfortunately, to many, Justice Kennedy's opinion was less than masterful in its balancing of these important freedoms, with a number of critics contending that the Court essentially "punted" on the fundamental issue. To the contrary, this Note seeks to deconstruct the Masterpiece decision to reveal the key guidance the Court provided for deciding clash-of-rights cases in the future. Like any good wedding cake, the opinion contains many layers, which stand for propositions both narrower and broader than the overall holding. Uniting each layer is a recognition that these freedoms cannot be perfectly balanced, and, while harsh, it is thus on the religious believer to pay a price before selling products in the public marketplace in order to maintain societal values. This, as New Mexico Supreme Court Judge Richard Bosson once eloquently articulated, is the "price of citizenship". [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 discusses the case "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission" to examine issues on the conflict between lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people and religious traditionalists in the U.S. Other topics include the observations of authors like Steven D. Smith on the historical struggle between paganism and Christianity, the moral complicity of the parties involved in the antidiscrimination lawsuits, and the role of religious liberty in said disputes.

The article focuses on the laws governing same-sex marriage in the U.S. Topics discussed include religious freedom and pluralism; sexual orientation and gender identity antidiscrimination legislation; the U.S. Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on same-sex marriage; and the U.S. Supreme Court case Obergefell v. Hodges on same.

Laughter in Supreme Court oral arguments has been misunderstood, treated as either a lighthearted distraction from the Court's serious work, or interpreted as an equalizing force in an otherwise hierarchical environment. Examining the more than nine thousand instances of laughter witnessed at the Court since 1955, this Article shows that the Justices of the Supreme Court use courtroom humor as a tool of advocacy and a signal of their power and status. As the Justices have taken on a greater advocacy role in the modern era, they have also provoked more laughter. The performative nature of courtroom humor is apparent from the uneven distribution of judicial jokes, jests, and jibes. The Justices overwhelmingly direct their most humorous comments at the advocates with whom they disagree, the advocates who are losing, and novice advocates. Building on prior work, we show that laughter in the courtroom is yet another aspect of judicial behavior that can be used to predict cases before Justices have even voted. Many laughs occur in response to humorous comments, but that should not distract from the serious and strategic work being done by that humor. To fully understand oral argument, Court observers would be wise to take laughter seriously. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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 examines the case Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission to discuss the conflict between lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) civil rights protections and religious freedom in the U.S. Topics include the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on the case tackling the tension between marriage equality and religious freedom and a brief history of alleged LGBT persecution.

The article focuses on analyzes conflicts between religious liberty and child welfare issues pertaining to LGBTQ youth in the U.S. Topics include current religious exemptions involving LGBTQ child welfare; U.S. Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on freedom of religion; and enactment of California Foster Care Nondiscrimination Act for the same.

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 U.S. Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission wherein the company's baker refused to make a wedding cake for a gay marriage. Topics mentioned include the doctrinal history of the free exercise clause, the secular exception in the case, the litigation of the case under the state-law protections for religious freedom.

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 discusses the history of the U.S. Supreme Court in relation to legal cases involving public and religious accommodations, racial equality, and gay rights in America. The U.S. constitutional law cases Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises Inc., Masterpiece Cakeshop v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, and Loving v. Virginia are examined, along with the Fourteenth Amendment to America's Constitution and the relationship between religion and discrimination.

The article discusses the Supreme Court case Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd, v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission which is a case regarding religious liberty. It states that in Masterpiece, the baker was penalized for declining to create a custom wedding cake for a same sex wedding because he would be participating in a wedding that violated his faith.

The article discusses the two high-profile Supreme Court cases Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Janus v. American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. It states that in Materpiece, Jack Phillips was penalized for declining to create a custom wedding cake for a same sex wedding while in Janus was whether public-employee unions could oblige the nonmembers to support collective-bargaining efforts through agency fees.

The article discusses the court case Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in June of 2018, wherein the plaintiff alleged discrimination based on sexual orientation.

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.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission, Masterpiece's owner, Jack Phillips, argued that forcing him to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would violate both his right to free speech and his right to the free exercise of religion, both of which are protected by the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Under US Supreme Court precedent, Mr Phillips's free-speech claim would be evaluated under the intermediate-scrutiny test of United States v O'Brien. Yet Mr Phillips's free-exercise claim would be evaluated under a different standard: the rational-basis test of Employment Division v Smith. These different standards are problematic because the free-speech and free-exercise claims are inherently connected, as the freedom of expression includes the freedom to express oneself on religious topics, and religious exercise communicates beliefs and expresses devotion. The two different standards are also susceptible to manipulation by litigants, who have an incentive to characterize religious claims as philosophical or ideological to take advantage of O'Brien's more favorable standard. In this Article, Professor Dimino argues that the Court should end the inconsistency either by overruling O'Brien and applying Smith to speech cases as well as religion ones, or by overruling Smith and applying O'Brien to religious cases as well as speech ones. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the U.S. Supreme Court's focus on etiquette in the case "Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission." An overview of the U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy's perspective on the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's treatment of religious liberty of public officials, including in regard to discrimination based on gay sexual orientation, is provided.

The article discusess various cases on digital technology and the future of privacy of the U.S. Topics discussed include U.S. Supreme Court case Carpenter v. United States concerning the privacy of historical cellphone location records under the Stored Communications Act; Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission court case on free exercise of religion of same-sex couple; and Janus v. AFSCME court case on agency fee pertaining to compelled speech.

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.

The article focuses on the challenges surrounding due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to U.S. Constitution. It informs on Supreme Court's role in interpreting constitutional law, along with its statutory and regulatory interpretation. It also informs on U.S. Supreme Court cases such as Brown v. Board of Education and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission on equal rights.

The article discusses the court cases Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Lee v Ashers Baking Co. Ltd. It talks about on the cases of the right of protected group (LGBT community) under sexual orientation regulations and people with religious beliefs who object to their rights, how in one case the decision was on the side of religious intolerance.