THE MANY LAYERS OF MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP.

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]