October Term 2017 · Docket 16-111

Must a baker create a cake for a same-sex wedding?

A baker claims religious freedom bars him from making a wedding cake. The state says anti-discrimination law requires him to serve all customers.

Official caption
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.
  2. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    The owner's counsel argued the state cannot compel speech. They stated the owner is a professional artist with free exercise rights.

    The state's counsel argued Colorado extended protections to LGBTQ people. They noted the bakery is open to the public and subject to state law.

    Justice Roberts questioned whether requiring a cake with a pre-existing message constitutes compelled association.

    Justice Sotomayor questioned the scope of the refusal regarding standard items sold to the public.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

The dispute centers on a bakery owner who refused to create a custom cake for a same-sex wedding. The state civil rights commission found this action violated anti-discrimination laws. The owner argues this requirement forces him to express a message he opposes. The state argues the law protects customers from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on December 5, 2017.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

The bakery owner wants the court to strike down the commission's order. He seeks a ruling that allows him to refuse service based on religious beliefs.

The state commission wants the court to uphold the anti-discrimination finding. It seeks to enforce the law requiring businesses to serve all customers equally.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

The owner argues the First Amendment prohibits the government from forcing him to create expressive art. He claims making the cake violates his religious convictions about marriage.

The state argues the anti-discrimination law protects customers from bias. It asserts the owner must serve all shoppers regardless of their sexual orientation or the event type.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Justice Sotomayor asked if the owner refused to sell standard cupcakes to same-sex couples.

Justice Ginsburg asked if the owner was required to write a specific message on the cake.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the boundary between religious freedom and anti-discrimination law. It determines whether businesses can refuse service based on the customer's identity. The outcome shapes how states enforce civil rights protections for LGBTQ individuals. It also clarifies the scope of free speech rights for commercial artists.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON