Business, Civil Rights, and Legal Voices File Briefs in Supreme Court, Defending Rights of Same-Sex Couple Discriminated Against by Business
WASHINGTON — Individuals and institutions from across the country representing a diverse cross-section of interests, perspectives, and concerns filed friend-of-court briefs today with the Supreme Court in support of Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple refused service by a Colorado bakery that claimed that selling them a wedding cake would violate the owner’s religious beliefs and artistic freedom.
The case, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, has sparked pushback and warning from civil rights leaders, legal scholars, business voices, faith leaders, and LGBT advocates across the country. The couple is being represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, which will appear before the court on December 5 for oral arguments.
Today’s filing of friend-of-the-court briefs showcases the diversity of voices supporting the couple at the center of the case. The list of those filing briefs includes:
- More than 35 national business leaders (including Citi, Marriott, and Apple, among many others)
- The nation’s most prominent civil rights voices (including NAACP LDF, Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and the Leadership Conference for Civil and Human Rights)
- Leading legal scholars and experts
- Almost 1,300 faith leaders
- More than 200 members of Congress (led by Sen. Tammy Baldwin and Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney)
- State attorneys general from across the country (including Republican AG Cynthia Coffman of Colorado)
- Over 150 mayors of cities and municipalities from coast to coast
- Hundreds of celebrity chefs and restaurateurs (Jose Andres, Anthony Bourdain, Padma Lakshmi, and Carla Hall)
- The nation’s leading LGBT rights advocacy organizations
- Top medical and health organizations
- Women’s health advocates
- Impacted people
The complete list of supporters filing briefs can be found here.
“Nobody should be turned away from a business, denied service, fired from their job, or evicted from their home simply because of who they are,” said Louise Melling, deputy legal director at the ACLU. “The issue in this case is whether there is a constitutional right to discriminate. Such a ruling would turn the constitution’s promise of equal treatment under the law on its head. It would have implications far beyond LGBT people, and would put into jeopardy long-standing laws against discrimination across the country.”
Civil rights leaders have also rallied around the case, arguing that a ruling in favor of the bakery would create a slippery slope that threatens to have consequences reaching people far beyond the LGBT community. Briefs filed by the NAACP Legal Defense Fund, the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights, and Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights Under Law highlight the dangers this case presents to groups who have been traditionally discriminated against.
Rep. John Lewis, one of the nation’s most prominent civil rights voices said, “As a nation based on laws, we must move forward, not backwards. I remember the signs that said ‘whites only’ and ‘colored only.’ I remember when businesses open to the public engaged in blatant discrimination against people based on religion, race, and gender. To allow any business discriminate based on sexual orientation in this day and age is simply wrong and would be a step back to darker time. We have an obligation to speak up and speak out for the rights of each and every person to be treated with dignity and respect.”
Legal scholars have also lined up to warn of the constitutional implications the case would have if the court rules in the favor of the bakery, arguing that distorting notions of First Amendment protections to justify discrimination will weaken the foundation of our nation’s bedrock principles and overall justice system.
“Discrimination in the marketplace has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections,” said Tobias Barrington Wolff of the University of Pennsylvania Law School. “A business does not receive a special exemption from ordinary commercial regulation simply because it sells goods or services with some creative or expressive component. That is true for commercial law firms, it is true for private schools, and it is true for bakeries. The Supreme Court has been clear and consistent, and it should adhere to its precedents.”
The nation’s leading LGBT rights organizations have also filed briefs with the court today, arguing that this case is yet another example of how anti-LGBT groups are increasingly exploiting notions of religious and speech protections to justify discrimination. They also argue that these groups’ efforts are part of a much larger, coordinated attack against LGBT people intended to unravel and undermine important protections that have been won in recent years.
“Imagine how you would feel if you were kicked out of a business simply because the owner didn’t want to serve ‘people like you.’ It’s shocking to realize that this kind of discrimination still happens to LGBT people today — causing humiliation, embarrassment, and fear,” said Rachel B. Tiven of Lambda Legal. “Colorado is one of a number of states that protects LGBT people from this kind of discrimination, but those protections are under attack. A ruling in favor of the bakery would undermine and unravel important protections for LGBT people, and would have consequences for people far beyond the LGBT community.”
Colorado’s own Republican attorney general weighed in, arguing that a ruling in favor of the bakery in this case would undermine nondiscrimination laws which were created to protect against these types of aggressions to begin with.
“Everyone agrees that the government cannot force people or entities to ‘speak,’” stated the brief filed by Colorado Attorney General Cynthia Coffman. “School children cannot be punished for refusing to say the pledge of allegiance. A newspaper cannot be compelled to print a politician’s editorial. But those scenarios are nothing like the circumstances here, in which a state law has merely prohibited discriminatory denials of service by businesses open to the public. If a retail bakery will offer a white, three-tiered cake to one customer, it has no constitutional right to refuse to sell the same cake to the next customer because he happens to be African-American, Jewish, or gay.”
More information about the case, as well as a collection of all of the briefs filed today, can be found here:
/cases/charlie-craig-and-david-mullins-v-masterpiece-cakeshop
LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
LGBTQ Rights
Religious Liberty
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
Learn More About the Issues in This Press Release
-
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
President Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender YouthPresident Biden Must Veto Defense Bill Attacking Military Families with Transgender Youth
WASHINGTON — The U.S. Senate today passed a version of the National Defense Authorization Act that would ban coverage for gender-affirming care for transgender youth whose parents are active-duty military personnel. The American Civil Liberties Union is opposing final passage of the defense bill over the inclusion of this health care ban and calling on President Joe Biden to veto the bill. Section 708 of the NDAA would prohibit insurance coverage for “medical interventions for the treatment of gender dysphoria” such as hormone therapy and puberty-suppressant medications, which Speaker Mike Johnson says would “permanently ban transgender medical treatment for minors.” The same treatments would be covered by TRICARE for any medical purpose other than treating gender dysphoria, the clinical diagnosis for the psychological distress experienced by transgender people related to their gender identity. “By passing this bill, the House and Senate are forcing thousands of active-duty service members to choose between their careers in the military and the future of their transgender children,” said Mike Zamore, national director of policy & government affairs at the ACLU. “This unconscionable and unjustifiable attack on those families stands in direct contrast to President Joe Biden’s legacy of defending the civil rights of transgender Americans — including when few in his own party showed the courage to do so. President Biden should cement his legacy by vetoing this bill and sending it back to Congress to pass without Speaker Johnson’s last minute health care ban for servicemembers’ kids.” If signed by President Biden, this health care ban would be the first new anti-LGBTQ provision enacted by Congress and signed into law by the president since the enactment of the military’s since-repealed “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy for LGBTQ servicemembers and the since-repealed federal law barring recognition of same-sex marriages known as the Defense of Marriage Act. It is unknown how many transgender youth are currently enrolled in TRICARE or how many of those enrolled are currently receiving coverage for gender-affirming care. In one 2022 analysis, 2,500 minor patients sought care for gender dysphoria through TRICARE Prime insurance at military or civilian treatment facilities in 2017, and 900 received puberty suppressants or gender-affirming hormones. Earlier this month, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a landmark case brought by the ACLU, the ACLU of Tennessee, Lambda Legal, and Akin Gump on behalf of three families and a medical provider challenging a Tennessee ban on gender-affirming hormonal therapies for transgender youth on the grounds the ban violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution. -
Press ReleaseDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Montana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's LicensesMontana Court Blocks State From Refusing to Correct Sex Markers on Transgender People's Birth Certificates and Driver's Licenses
HELENA, Mont. – A Montana court has granted a preliminary injunction preventing the state of Montana from enforcing policies that bar transgender people from obtaining accurate sex designations on their birth certificates and driver’s licenses. After a prior restriction on amendments of birth certificates was struck down by the courts, in early 2024 the state of Montana enacted a new rule that categorically bars transgender Montanans from correcting the sex designation on their birth certificates. Around the same time, the Montana Department of Justice adopted a policy similarly restricting amendment of driver’s licenses. The plaintiffs challenged these policies in state district court, arguing that they violate various constitutional provisions, including the right to equal protection of the law. In a recent Montana Supreme Court decision, two justices concluded that discrimination on the basis of transgender status – as the state is engaging in here – is a form of sex discrimination that violates the Montana Constitution’s equal protection clause. The plaintiffs, two transgender women, are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of Montana, and Nixon Peabody LLP. Plaintiff Jessica Kalarchik, a veteran who served in the United States Army for 31 years, said: “After finally being able to live my life openly as the woman I know myself to be, I am frustrated that my birth state, Montana, wants me to carry around a birth certificate that incorrectly lists my sex as male. I live my life openly as a woman, I am treated as a woman in my daily life, and there is no reason I should be forced to carry a birth certificate that incorrectly identifies me as male. Fortunately, the court agrees that this ridiculous policy should not be in effect.” “Once again the State of Montana chose to adopt a draconian policy that is clearly intended to marginalize transgender Montanans, only for that discriminatory action to be blocked by the courts,” said Akilah Deernose, executive director for the ACLU of Montana. “Here in Montana we treasure our right to privacy and to live our lives free from governmental intrusion. The State of Montana clearly has not learned any lessons from the past few years, where courts have repeatedly struck down unconstitutional laws targeting transgender Montanans.” “Forcing anyone to carry documents that contradict their identity unjustly violates their rights to privacy, equal treatment, and not being compelled to convey a government message about their sex that they disagree with,” said Malita Picasso, staff attorney for the ACLU’s LGBTQ & HIV Project. “Such a policy marks transgender people for further mistreatment and discrimination, essentially requiring them to carry papers that out them as transgender any time they need to provide identity documents. Fortunately, the court has refused to allow the state of Montana to subvert the freedom of transgender Montanans to control their own identity as this case goes forward.” In granting the plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction, the court held, “[i]f the challenged state actions discriminate against transgender individuals on the basis of their transgender status, they also necessarily discriminate the basis of sex.” The state has the option of appealing the district court’s ruling to the Montana Supreme Court, but the underlying case will proceed in district court. A trial has not yet been scheduled. -
FloridaDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Keohane v. DixonKeohane v. Dixon
On September 30, 2024, the Florida Department of Corrections rescinded its policy regarding treatment of gender dysphoria, which allowed for hormone therapy when deemed medically necessary, as well as access to clothing and grooming standards that accord with one’s gender identity. Under this new policy, grooming and clothing accommodations have been stripped away, and hormone therapy is not permitted unless an exception is deemed constitutionally required. The ACLU brought a class action challenging the policy. -
IdahoDec 2024
LGBTQ Rights
Robinson v. LabradorRobinson v. Labrador
Two incarcerated transgender women have sued the state of Idaho alleging that HB 688, a 2024 law barring state funding for gender-affirming medical care for transgender people, denies them access to the health care their doctors have prescribed for them and is a violation of their Eighth Amendment right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. They represent a class of all incarcerated folks within the state of Idaho who face the loss of hormone therapy due to HB 668.