The Colorado cake baker case refers to the legal fight that began in 2012 when Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, refused to design a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Phillips won at the U.S. Supreme Court in 2018 by a 7-2 vote, but the ruling was narrow and left the big constitutional question unanswered. A second complaint against him was dismissed by the Colorado Supreme Court in 2024 on procedural grounds. The underlying question of whether a creative professional can refuse to produce custom work for a same-sex wedding was finally answered in 2023 in a separate Colorado case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.
What Happened at Masterpiece Cakeshop in 2012
In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins went to Masterpiece Cakeshop and asked Phillips to design a cake for their upcoming wedding. Same-sex marriage was not yet legal in Colorado, and the couple planned to marry in Massachusetts and celebrate back home. Phillips declined on the spot, telling them he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex ceremonies because of his religious beliefs. He offered to sell them other baked goods.1Oyez. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. That law prohibits any place of public accommodation from refusing service based on sexual orientation, among other protected characteristics, and its definition of “place of public accommodation” sweeps in essentially every business that sells goods or services to the public. The only carve-out is for places primarily used for religious worship.2Justia Law. Colorado Revised Statutes Title 24 Section 24-34-601
The Colorado Civil Rights Commission found that Masterpiece Cakeshop had violated the Act. It ordered the bakery to change its policies and train staff on compliance. Phillips lost his appeal at the Colorado Court of Appeals and then took the case to the U.S. Supreme Court, which agreed to hear it in 2017.
The 2018 Supreme Court Ruling
The Supreme Court ruled for Phillips 7-2 in June 2018, but the decision was far narrower than either side wanted. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion did not resolve whether the First Amendment protects a baker’s right to refuse a same-sex wedding cake. Instead, the Court focused on how the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had handled the case and found the process constitutionally flawed.3Supreme Court of the United States. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
The Free Exercise Clause requires government agencies to treat religious beliefs with neutrality and respect. The Court found the Commission did neither. During public hearings, one commissioner said “freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust,” and called Phillips’ religious justification “one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use.” No other commissioner objected, and no one disavowed the comments later.3Supreme Court of the United States. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
The Court also noted an inconsistency. In other cases, the Commission had allowed bakers to refuse requests for cakes carrying anti-gay messages, accepting that those bakers were objecting to the message rather than the customer. When Phillips drew a similar line, saying he would serve gay customers but would not create a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding, the Commission rejected that reasoning.
Kennedy was explicit that the general rule still holds: religious or philosophical objections do not automatically allow a business to deny service to protected groups under a neutral, generally applicable public accommodations law. Because the Commission’s process was tainted by hostility to Phillips’ religion, the Court never had to decide whether custom cake-making is protected speech or whether a religious exemption from anti-discrimination law is required.
The Second Case: Autumn Scardina
A new dispute arose while the first case was still pending. On June 26, 2017, Autumn Scardina called Masterpiece Cakeshop and ordered a custom cake that was pink on the inside and blue on the outside to celebrate her birthday and her gender transition. Phillips declined, saying he could not create a cake carrying that message. Scardina filed a discrimination complaint under the same Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, this time based on transgender status.4Justia Law. In re Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.
The case took a complicated procedural path. The Commission opened the complaint but closed its administrative proceedings without issuing the order the statute required. Rather than appeal that administrative decision, Scardina filed a new lawsuit directly in state district court. The trial court found Phillips had violated the law and imposed a $500 fine. The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed in December 2023.5State Court Report. Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Scardina
On October 8, 2024, the Colorado Supreme Court vacated those rulings and dismissed the case. Scardina had started through the administrative process but then skipped the required step of appealing the Commission’s closure before going to district court. Colorado law required her to exhaust her administrative remedies first. Because she had not, the district court never had jurisdiction. The Colorado Supreme Court did not touch the free speech or free exercise arguments.4Justia Law. In re Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc.
The Case That Actually Answered the Question: 303 Creative
The constitutional question the Masterpiece cases kept avoiding was decided in a different Colorado case. In June 2023, the Supreme Court ruled in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, involving Lorie Smith, a website designer who wanted to create custom wedding websites but refused to design them for same-sex couples. Colorado argued the Anti-Discrimination Act required her to serve all customers equally if she offered wedding websites at all.6Supreme Court of the United States. 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis
In a 6-3 opinion by Justice Gorsuch, the Court held that the First Amendment prevents Colorado from forcing a business owner to create expressive works that convey messages she disagrees with. The Court treated Smith’s custom wedding websites as “pure speech” protected by the First Amendment, which Colorado’s anti-discrimination law could not override by compelling her to produce speech celebrating marriages she does not endorse.
The majority drew a line between expressive and non-expressive services. Public accommodation laws can still require businesses to sell ordinary goods and services on equal terms. The opinion acknowledged “there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment.” But when a business creates original, customized work that communicates a message, the government cannot force the creator to speak a message she opposes.
Justice Sotomayor dissented, writing that the ruling “grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” and arguing that this was the first time the Court had allowed a commercial business to turn away customers based on a protected characteristic under a free speech theory.
What the Law in Colorado Looks Like Now
The Masterpiece Cakeshop litigation itself produced no durable rule about whether a baker can refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. The 2018 Supreme Court decision turned on commissioner hostility; the 2024 Scardina decision turned on a procedural misstep. Neither court reached the underlying constitutional question.
The 303 Creative ruling did reach it, and that decision now governs businesses like Masterpiece Cakeshop. If you create original, expressive work for a living, the First Amendment protects you from being compelled to produce a commission that would communicate a message you disagree with. The protection is tied to the expressive nature of the work, not to the identity of the customer. A business cannot refuse to serve a customer based on who they are when the service is an ordinary commercial transaction.
Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act remains fully in force. Businesses in Colorado still cannot refuse to serve customers based on sexual orientation, gender identity, race, or any other protected class when the service involves standard goods or services.2Justia Law. Colorado Revised Statutes Title 24 Section 24-34-601 A bakery selling a cake from the display case is covered by anti-discrimination law. A baker designing a one-of-a-kind piece with original artwork for a specific ceremony likely falls on the expressive side of the 303 Creative line. Most real disputes will land somewhere between those poles, and courts will continue sorting them out one commission at a time.