Business Finance
GU Wk 3 Masterpiece Cakeshop & the Colorado Anti Discrimination Act Case Study

Grantham University

Question Description

I need an explanation for this Business Law question to help me study.

PROMPT:

Using the Word Template and other instructional materials attached to this Assignment, prepare and submit a Case Brief of the U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1718 (2018).

This is a specific type of writing assignment. This case also relates to your Week 3 Forum Discussion. This Case Brief Assignment is graded separate!y and in addition to the forum.

For this writing Assignment, you are to prepare and submit a Case Brief of Masterpiece Cakeshop. A Case Brief provides a summary and analysis (the "brief") of the key points in a court opinion (the "case"). In our Week 3 Forum, you are asked to consider questions based on the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

A copy of the court opinion - the case - is attached here. Also attached here is a document entitled, "How to Brief a Case," which details the components of the Case Brief. Use this for guidance. Next, attached is a "Word Template" which you are to download to set up the written format for the Case Brief.

INSTRUCTIONS DETAILS:

L Download and read the attachment "How to Brief a Case."

2. Download and read the attached U.S. Supreme Court opinion of Masterpiece Cakeshop. This is the case you are briefing.

3. Download, save, and open the attached "Word Template" in Word on your computer. Use it to complete your Case Brief of the Masterpiece Cakeshop opinion. The template is formatted for you in Word. The case citation you are to use in your Case Brief is: Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 138 S.Ct. 1718 (2018).

4. Write this Assignment in your own words! Do not copy and paste blocks from the court opinion or Internet study sources.

5. How to name your document in Word: Use your last name and the Assignment name in the saved document name of your paper in Word. Example: JonesWk2Brief.docx

6. Submit your final document as an attachment to this Assignment.

7. Your paper will go through Turnltln automatically on submission.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Masterpiece Cakeshop v. COLO. CIVIL RIGHTS, 138 S. Ct. 1719 - Supr... 1 of 36 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1795043925537702415&... 138 S.Ct. 1719 (2018) MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., et al., Petitioners v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, et al. No. 16-111. Supreme Court of United States. Argued December 5, 2017. Decided June 4, 2018. ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO. Kristen K. Waggoner, Scottsdale, AZ, for Petitioners. Noel J. Francisco, Solicitor General, for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioners. Frederick R. Yarger, Denver, CO, for the State Respondent. David D. Cole, Washington, DC, for the Private Respondents. David A. Cortman, Rory T, Gray, Alliance Defending Freedom, Lawrenceville, GA, Nicolle H. Martin, Lakewood, CO, Kristen K. Waggoner, Jeremy D. Tedesco, James A. Campbell, Jonathan A. Scruggs, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ, for Petitioners. Cynthia H. Coffman, Attorney General, Frederick R. Yarger, Solicitor General, Office of the Colorado Attorney General, Denver, CO, Vincent E. Morscher, Deputy Attorney General, Glenn E. Roper, Deputy Solicitor General, Stacy L. Worthington, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Grant T. Sullivan, Assistant Solicitor General, for Respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Mark Silverstein, Sara R. Neel, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Colorado, Paula Greisen, King & Greisen, LLC, Denver, CO, Ria Tabacco Mar, James D. Esseks, Leslie 1723 Cooper, Rachel Wainer Apter, Louise Melling, Rose A. *1723 Saxe, Lee Rowland, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, New York, NY, David D. Cole, Amanda W. Shanor, Daniel Mach, American Civil Liberties Union Foundation, Washington, DC, for Respondents Charlie Craig and David Mullins. 1720 *1720 Syllabus[*] Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated by Jack Phillips, an 1/31/2020, 2:41 PM Masterpiece Cakeshop v. COLO. CIVIL RIGHTS, 138 S. Ct. 1719 - Supr... 2 of 36 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1795043925537702415&... expert baker and devout Christian. In 2012 he told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages — marriages that Colorado did not then recognize — but that he would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes. The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) pursuant to the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits, as relevant here, discrimination based on sexual orientation in a "place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services ... to the public." Under CADA's administrative review system, the Colorado Civil Rights Division first found probable cause for a violation and referred the case to the Commission. The Commission then referred the case for a formal hearing before a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who ruled in the couple's favor. In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips' First Amendment claims: that requiring him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would violate his right to free speech by compelling him to exercise his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and would violate his right to the free exercise of religion. Both the Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. Held: The Commission's actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. Pp. 1727-1732. (a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect gay persons and 1721 gay couples in the exercise of their civil rights, but religious and philosophical *1721 objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ___, ___, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 2594, 192 L.Ed.2d 609. While it is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and services on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation, has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808, or Obergefell. Given the State's position at the time, there is some force to Phillips' argument that he was not unreasonable in deeming his decision lawful. State law at the time also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages they considered offensive. Indeed, while the instant enforcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. Phillips too was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case. Pp. 1727-1729. (b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commission's treatment of Phillips' case, which showed elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs motivating his objection. As the record shows, some of the commissioners at 1/31/2020, 2:41 PM Masterpiece Cakeshop v. COLO. CIVIL RIGHTS, 138 S. Ct. 1719 - Supr... 3 of 36 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1795043925537702415&... the Commission's formal, public hearings endorsed the view that religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, disparaged Phillips' faith as despicable and characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. No commissioners objected to the comments. Nor were they mentioned in the later state-court ruling or disavowed in the briefs filed here. The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission's adjudication of Phillips' case. Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips' case and the cases of other bakers with objections to anti-gay messages who prevailed before the Commission. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message on the requested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases involving requests for cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell other products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found Phillips' willingness to do the same irrelevant. The State Court of Appeals' brief discussion of this disparity of treatment does not answer Phillips' concern that the State's practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection. Pp. 1728-1731. (c) For these reasons, the Commission's treatment of Phillips' case violated the State's duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint. The government, consistent with the Constitution's guarantee of free 1722 exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected *1722 citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472. Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality include "the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body." Id., at 540, 113 S.Ct. 2217. In view of these factors, the record here demonstrates that the Commission's consideration of Phillips' case was neither tolerant nor respectful of his religious beliefs. The Commission gave "every appearance," id., at 545, 113 S.Ct. 2217, of adjudicating his religious objection based on a negative normative "evaluation of the particular justification" for his objection and the religious grounds for it, id., at 537, 113 S.Ct. 2217, but government has no role in expressing or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips' conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. The inference here is thus that Phillips' religious objection was not considered with the neutrality required by the Free Exercise Clause. The State's interest could have been weighed against Phillips' sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. But the official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners' comments were inconsistent with that requirement, and the Commission's disparate consideration of Phillips' case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. Pp. 1730-1732. 1/31/2020, 2:41 PM Masterpiece Cakeshop v. COLO. CIVIL RIGHTS, 138 S. Ct. 1719 - Supr... 4 of 36 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1795043925537702415&... 370 P.3d 272, reversed. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. KAGAN, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined. Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court. In 2012 a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop's owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages — marriages the State of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act. The Commission determined that the shop's actions violated the Act and ruled in the couple's favor. The Colorado state courts affirmed the ruling and its enforcement order, and this Court now must decide whether the Commission's order violated the Constitution. The case presents 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 goods 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 free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning. One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker's refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage — for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning — that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker's creation can be protected, these details might make a difference. The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker's refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it 1/31/2020, 2:41 PM Masterpiece Cakeshop v. COLO. CIVIL RIGHTS, 138 S. Ct. 1719 - Supr... 5 of 36 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1795043925537702415&... are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless. Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court's precedents make clear 1724 that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a *1724 business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires. Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission's actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside. I A Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, a suburb of Denver. The shop offers a variety of baked goods, ranging from everyday cookies and brownies to elaborate custom-designed cakes for birthday parties, weddings, and other events. Jack Phillips is an expert baker who has owned and operated the shop for 24 years. Phillips is a devout Christian. He has explained that his "main goal in life is to be obedient to" Jesus Christ and Christ's "teachings in all aspects of his life." App. 148. And he seeks to "honor God through his work at Masterpiece Cakeshop." Ibid. One of Phillips' religious beliefs is that "God's intention for marriage from the beginning of history is that it is and should be the union of one man and one woman." Id., at 149. To Phillips, creating a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would be equivalent to participating in a celebration that is contrary to his own most deeply held beliefs. Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver. To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for "our wedding." Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned. 1/31/2020, 2:41 PM Masterpiece Cakeshop v. COLO. CIVIL RIGHTS, 138 S. Ct. 1719 - Supr... 6 of 36 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1795043925537702415&... Phillips informed the couple that he does not "create" wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, "I'll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same sex weddings." Ibid. The couple left the shop without further discussion. The following day, Craig's mother, who had accompanied the couple to the cakeshop and been present for their interaction with Phillips, telephoned to ask Phillips why he had declined to serve her son. Phillips explained that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage, and also because Colorado (at that time) did not recognize same-sex marriages. Id., at 153. He later explained his belief that "to create a wedding cake for an event that celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible, would have been a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony and relationship that they were entering into." Ibid. (emphasis deleted). B 1725 For most of its history, Colorado has prohibited discrimination in places of public *1725 accommodation. In 1885, less than a decade after Colorado achieved statehood, the General Assembly passed "An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil Rights," which guaranteed "full and equal enjoyment" of certain public facilities to "all citizens," "regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude." 1885 Colo. Sess. Laws pp. 132-133. A decade later, the General Assembly expanded the requirement to apply to "all other places of public accommodation." 1895 Colo. Sess. Laws ch. 61, p. 139. Today, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) carries forward the state's tradition of prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation. Amended in 2007 and 2008 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as other protected characteristics, CADA in relevant part provides as follows: "It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a) (2017). The Act defines "public accommodation" broadly to include any "place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services ... to the public," but excludes "a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes." § 24-34-601(1). CADA establishes an administrative system for the resolution of discrimination claims. 1/31/2020, 2:41 PM Masterpiece Cakeshop v. COLO. CIVIL RIGHTS, 138 S. Ct. 1719 - Supr... 7 of 36 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1795043925537702415&... Complaints of discrimination in violation of CADA are addressed in the first instance by the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The Division investigates each claim; and if it finds probable cause that CADA has been violated, it will refer the matter to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission, in turn, decides whether to initiate a formal hearing before a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who will hear evidence and argument before issuing a written decision. See §§ 24-34-306, 24-4-105(14). The decision of the ALJ may be appealed to the full Commission, a seven-member appointed body. The Commission holds a public hearing and deliberative session before voting on the case. If the Commission determines that the evidence proves a CADA violation, it may impose remedial measures as provided by statute. See § 24-34-306(9). Available remedies include, among other things, orders to cease-and-desist a discriminatory policy, to file regular compliance reports with the Commission, and "to take affirmative action, including the posting of notices setting forth the substantive rights of the public." § 24-34-605. Colorado law does not permit the Commission to assess money damages or fines. §§ 24-34-306(9), ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer

Attached.

Running head: THE INTELECTUAL PROPERTY

Case Law Analysis: Intellectual Property
Bryan Nickerson
Bryan Nickerson
Fundamentals of Business Law
Cynthia Geppert
Capella University

THE INTELECTUAL PROPERTY
Apple vs. Samsung Electronics
Nature of Case
Apple vs. Samsung Electronics is the case brought to the Supreme Court by Samsung
Electronics regarding the award damages it was required to pay to Apple Inc. over patent
infringements. This case is regarding a long legal dispute between Apple and Samsung which
originated in the year 2011. The Apple Company entered in to a court case regarding damages for
profits that Samsung received due to infringing on product designs in the Samsung smart phones.
The case presented to the Supreme Court is to determine what elements of the patent infringement
can be included in the damages.
The Facts
Apple Inc. initiated in a legal case claiming that Samsung’s Electronics impinge on on
certain scheme features that the Apple has specific patients for. With the release of the original
iPhone they acquire...

DrJWM (1340)
Rice University

Anonymous
Top quality work from this tutor! I’ll be back!

Anonymous
Heard about Studypool for a while and finally tried it. Glad I did caus this was really helpful.

Anonymous
Thank you! Reasonably priced given the quality

Studypool
4.7
Trustpilot
4.5
Sitejabber
4.4