One award given annually to an incoming first-year student (non-renewable).
The Nelson and Marlene Cummings Scholarship was founded by Jeffrey Cummings, a 1984 Madison graduate, to honor his parents and their life-long commitment to public affairs, civic activities and education. The purpose of the scholarship is to assist James Madison College in its effort to recruit and retain students whose presence will further the College's compelling interest in obtaining the educational benefits that flow from a racially and ethnically diverse student body.
This essay competition requires a 1,000 word (max-essay and is open to all incoming first-year students who are planning to enroll in James Madison College at Michigan State University during the upcoming fall term.) It is the donor's wish that each candidate answer the following essay question. Supplemental research is appropriate but not necessary, and candidates should make sure to address all issues raised by the question.
Preference shall be given to the student whose essay is stylistically well-written and best reflects analytic thought, creativity and personal experience.
Please explain your view on these issues and discuss the potential implications on society if the courts were to adopt your position.
The Masterpiece Cakeshop Cases – A Collision of Rights: Protection from Discrimination versus Freedom of Speech and the Free Exercise of Religion
In 2012, Charlie Craig & David Mullins (the “Couple”) planned to marry in Massachusetts, where same-sex marriages were legal, and to celebrate their marriage in their home state of Colorado, which at the time did not recognize same-sex marriages as lawful. (Same-sex marriage is now lawful throughout the nation by virtue of a 2015 ruling by the United States Supreme Court.) As part of their celebration, the Couple wanted to have a wedding cake and they went to Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. in Lakewood, Colorado to purchase one.
Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece, refused to design and create a wedding cake for the Couple because of his religious beliefs. Phillips, who is a Christian, believes that decorating cakes is a form of art and that he can honor God through his artistic talents. Phillips further believes that he would anger God by creating cakes for same-sex couples. Although Phillips refused to provide the Couple with a wedding cake, he did offer to make and sell the Couple any other baked goods that Masterpiece offers.
The Couple, who felt that they were singled out in public and humiliated because their sexual orientation, filed a lawsuit against Phillips and Masterpiece under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (the “Act”). The Act prohibits places of public accommodation - - including businesses open to the public - - from discriminating against persons based on their sexual orientation.
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission ruled in favor of the Couple and held that Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeship (hereafter “Phillips”) had discriminated against them. The Commission ordered Phillips to create custom wedding cakes celebrating same-sex marriage if he creates similar cakes for marriages involving one man and one woman, change his company’s policies, and provide anti-discrimination training to his staff. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission’s ruling.
Rather than providing wedding cakes to same-sex couples, Phillips decided to stop providing wedding cakes to anyone even though he suffered a 40% decline in his business. Phillips also filed a petition to urge the United States Supreme Court to hear his appeal and the Supreme Court agreed to do so.
In his presentation to the Supreme Court, Phillips argued that applying the Act to compel him to design and make wedding cakes for same-sex couples violated his rights to free speech and to the free exercise of his religion as provided by the First Amendment to the Constitution. In particular, Phillips asserted that the Colorado decision forced him against his will to adopt a message supporting same-sex marriage because the act of creating a wedding cake is inherently an expression of support for the marriage. Phillips also asserted that the Colorado decision places him in the untenable position of either standing by his religious convictions (which do not approve of same-sex marriage) or abandoning his wedding cake business.
The Couple argued that Phillips’ right to free speech was not violated because the mere act of selling a wedding cake (which is all that the Couple asked him to do) is not “expressive conduct” that falls under the protection of the First Amendment. Consequently, the order requiring Phillips to sell wedding cakes to same-sex couples does not - - standing alone - - compel him to communicate a message in violation of his sincerely held beliefs. The Couple further argued that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Law is a law of general application that is not targeted at a specific religion or population but instead requires all businesses that wish to operate in Colorado not refuse service to persons based on their sexual orientation. Given this, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment does not apply to provide Phillips with a justification for his non-compliance with the Colorado law based on his religious beliefs.
The Supreme Court decided Phillips’ appeal on June 4, 2018. See Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018). In its opinion, on page 1723, the Supreme Court highlighted the matters at stake:
The case presents the difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek good or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion.
The Justices of the Supreme Court had differing views regarding how the competing rights of the Couple and Phillips should be balanced under the facts of the case. However, the Supreme Court found that it was not necessary to resolve this difficult question to resolve Phillips’ appeal. Instead, the Court agreed that the decision of the Colorado Court of Appeals should be overturned because the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s treatment of the case was not fair and impartial but instead reflected “a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [Phillips’] objection” to providing the Couple with a wedding cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S.Ct. at 1730.
Weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission filed a second complaint against Phillips on behalf of a trans woman named Autumn Scardina, who alleged that Phillips refused to provide her with service based on her transgender status. In particular, Scardina called Masterpiece to request a cake with a blue exterior, a pink interior, and without any words, symbols, or other details. After Phillips’ wife Debra confirmed that Masterpiece could make the cake, Scardina explained that she wanted the cake to celebrate her transition from male to female by displaying it at a party for the anniversary of her gender transition. Debra then replied that she did not think that Masterpiece could make the cake because of its message. In particular, Phillips believed that the cake would convey a message that conflicted with his religious beliefs that gender cannot be changed or chosen. Phillips offered to create a different custom cake for Scardina and to sell her any of the pre-made items available for purchase at Masterpiece but Scardina did not accept the alternatives.
On January 6, 2023, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court ruling in Scardina’s favor. Scardina v. Materpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 528 P.3d 926 (Ct.App. 2023); see https://adfmedialegalfiles.blob.core.windows.net/files/MasterpieceScardinaAppealsCourtDecision.pdf
The Court of Appeals held: (1) Phillips discriminated against Scardina because of her status as a trans woman; (2) the cake requested by Scardina did not have any inherent meaning or require Phillips to express a message such that making the cake would not compel Phillips to speak in violation of his First Amendment right to freedom of speech; (3) a proprietor may not refuse to sell a non-expressive product to a protected person based on that person’s intent to use the product as part of a celebration that the proprietor considers offensive; and (4) enforcing the Act against Phillips did not violate his First Amendment right to freely exercise his religion because it was a neutral law of general applicability.
On October 3, 2023, the Colorado Supreme Court exercised its discretion to consider Phillips’ appeal to consider the questions of whether the decision by Phillips and Masterpiece not to create a pink cake with blue frosting that was to be used to celebrate a gender transition: (1) violated the Act’s prohibition on transgender status discrimination; and (2) whether the decision by Phillips and Masterpiece not to create such a cake for such a purpose was protected by the First Amendment.
How do you believe that the Colorado Supreme Court should rule on these questions? How should the court balance the rights of an individual to free speech and the free exercise of his/her religion against the broader societal interest in eliminating discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity? Should Phillips have the right to refuse to provide requested goods or services to gay and transgender individuals if doing so would conflict with his religious beliefs? Should Colorado have the right to require that all businesses that operate within its boundaries to comply with its anti-discrimination law as a condition of doing business within the state?
Should claims concerning sexual orientation discrimination be treated the same as claims of race discrimination or of sex discrimination? Why or why not? Keep in mind that the federal courts have previously rejected the proposition that a business owner’s religious beliefs could justify racial discrimination:
Undoubtedly defendant . . . has a constitutional right to espouse the religious beliefs of his own choosing, however, he does not have the absolute right to exercise and practice such beliefs in utter disregard of the clear constitutional rights of other citizens. This Court refuses to lend credence or support to his position that he has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of the Negro race in his business establishment upon the ground that to do so would violate his sacred religious beliefs.
See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 256 F.Supp. 941, 945 (D.S.C. 1966), affirmed in relevant part, 377 F.2d 433 (4th Cir. 1967), affirmed and modified on other grounds, 390 U.S. 400 (1968).
To apply, refer to the Cummings Scholarship application.
