海角大神

In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins walked into a cake shop in Lakewood, Colo. Across the counter was Jack Phillips, owner of the bakery he had opened 24 years earlier.

The two men told him they wanted a cake for their wedding reception. They even had a binder of possible ideas. Before they could open it, Mr. Phillips told them that while he would be happy to make them other products, he did not sell baked goods for same-sex weddings because of his 海角大神 beliefs.

Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins left embarrassed and, they say, distraught. After the Colorado Civil Rights Commission found in 2014 that Phillips had violated the state鈥檚 anti-discrimination law and ordered him to make cakes for same-sex weddings or not design wedding cakes at all, Phillips says he felt forced to choose between his faith and his life鈥檚 work.

Five years after the couple left the Masterpiece Cakeshop, the case challenging a state law prohibiting discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) people will be heard by the US Supreme Court. As evidenced by the people who began camping outside the high court Friday for a seat at Tuesday鈥檚 oral arguments, it seems destined to be a historic ruling in a landmark term.聽Heavyweight legal organizations on both sides have warned that defeat could bring potentially seismic consequences, more than 100 amicus briefs have been filed 鈥� some forming unlikely partnerships 鈥� and observers are predicting the justices will split along ideological lines. The views of Justice Anthony Kennedy 鈥� often the court鈥檚 swing vote, but also its leading proponent of gay rights 鈥� will be of even more interest than usual to court watchers.

This is 鈥渢he first time we have this question of whether or not someone鈥檚 religious beliefs in not serving [people] something should be stronger than the state鈥檚 interest in making sure that people are not improperly excluded from participating in the public marketplace,鈥� says Robert Tuttle, a professor of law and religion and George Washington University Law School in Washington.

The case brought to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission is significantly different from the case now before the Supreme Court. Back then, the case mirrored religious freedom-based challenges to advancements in LGBT rights. Phillips also had made an argument on free speech grounds, however, and the validity of that argument is likely to decide the case. The Roberts court has been willing to shift legal precedents on a variety of issues, from union fees to campaign finance, in the interest of . This case could continue that trend, experts say.

鈥楥ompelled speech鈥� with 鈥榮tartling鈥� implications

Boiling it down, Phillips argues the First Amendment protects his right to create and sell wedding cakes in a way that is consistent with his religious identity. He also refuses to make cakes that celebrate Halloween, divorce, or 鈥減romote atheism, racism, or indecency.鈥� What the lower courts in Colorado are doing, he claims, is forcing him to speak in favor of something he objects to.

Under the 鈥渃ompelled speech鈥� doctrine, the Supreme Court has held that in some circumstances the First Amendment protects an individual from being required to express a thought with which they disagree. Students cannot be forced to salute the flag, for example, and a newspaper cannot be required to publish an advertisement. (Other forms of compelled speech, such as warnings on alcohol and tobacco products and filing a tax return, are not protected.)

The thought and care Phillips puts into designing and decorating his wedding cakes, he argues 鈥渘ecessarily express ideas about marriage and the couple, and as a result ... are entitled to full constitutional protection.鈥�

A key precedent he cites is a 1993 that the state of Massachusetts could not force the organizers of a private St. Patrick鈥檚 Day parade to allow an Irish-American LGBT group to march with them. That ruling means 鈥渁 cake artist who serves all people, like Phillips does, cannot be forced to create wedding cakes that celebrate marriage at odds with his faith,鈥� his petition says.

He also claims that Colorado鈥檚 nondiscrimination law violates his Free Exercise rights because it specifically targets religious objectors to same-sex marriage, pointing to three Colorado bakeries who were not punished for refusing to make cakes with anti-gay inscriptions on them in 2014.

His case has attracted a diverse range of supporters, including the libertarian Cato Institute in Washington, which supported the court legalizing same-sex marriage in Obergefell v. Hodges two years ago.

鈥淲e also support private freedoms here,鈥� says Ilya Shapiro, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

In its amicus brief, Cato warns of the 鈥渟tartling results鈥� upholding the lower court decisions in favor of the state would mean. A graphic designer who thinks Scientology is fraudulent, for example, would not be allowed to refuse to design flyers for Scientologist meetings, and an actor 鈥渨ould violate the [Colorado] law if he refused to perform in a commercial for a religious organization he dislikes.鈥�

A 鈥榮traightforward鈥� case with 鈥榣imitless鈥� consequences

However, some experts say a victory for Phillips would have equally significant consequences.

Phillips鈥檚 argument 鈥渋s no different conceptually than if an artist or painter offered to paint people at a gallery for a fee but refused to paint black people,鈥� says Floyd Abrams, a leading First Amendment scholar, in a conference call with reporters organized by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU).

Ria Tabacco Mar, a staff attorney for the ACLU who is representing Craig and Mullins, says 鈥渢he consequences really are limitless鈥� should the Supreme Court rule broadly against her clients.

The Department of Justice argues against that. In 聽supporting Phillips, it says the justices should be able to write an opinion exempting artists like Phillips from serving same-sex weddings without throwing other forms of discrimination into legal limbo. Racial bias in particular, the government notes, is something the justices found last year to be a 鈥渦nique historical, constitutional and institutional concern鈥� that gives the state a 鈥渃ompelling鈥� interest to eradicate. 鈥淭he same cannot be said for opposition to same-sex marriage,鈥� the government claims.

The free speech portion of the case has become more prominent largely because Supreme Court precedent makes the free exercise of religion portion practically unwinnable for Phillips, experts say. The court set that precedent in 1990, when Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in that exempting individuals from certain laws on religious grounds 鈥渨ould open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind,鈥� including military service, payment of taxes, and child-neglect laws.

鈥淭here haven鈥檛 been any judge-mandated exceptions to public accommodations law, for individual religiously motivated corporate actors, whether in the federal judiciary or in states,鈥� says Professor Tuttle, who signed onto an amicus brief supporting the couple. 鈥淥pening the door to those is just utterly unpredictable in its consequences.鈥�

Some experts argue that the free speech complaint is also unfounded because, unlike the parade in Boston, Phillips鈥檚 store is not a private event but a public accommodation.

鈥淲hen [an artist] opens a shop, then invites the public in and offers their works of art for sale, they can鈥檛 do it in a way that violates the antidiscrimination laws,鈥� says Mr. Abrams, a lawyer who has argued numerous high-profile free speech cases, including defending The New York Times against the Nixon administration鈥檚 attempts to stop them publishing the Pentagon Papers. 鈥淭his seems a fairly straightforward decision where there was overt discrimination.鈥�

Specifically, the couple point to a 聽that government can regulate speech under certain circumstances, including if 鈥渢he incidental restriction on First Amendment freedoms is not greater鈥� than a 鈥渟ubstantial government interest.鈥�

Furthermore, some experts say it would be easier for Phillips to convince the justices that he was compelled to say something he disagreed with if there was an actual message on the cake. Since the 2012 conversation never got that far, and Phillips is arguing that the cake by itself speaks to his support for same-sex marriage, there are fewer concrete facts for the justices to point to.

That also makes it harder for the court to write a narrow opinion in favor of Phillips, says Geoffrey Stone, a First Amendment expert and a professor at the University of Chicago Law School. If providing a plain wedding cake for a same-sex wedding is an endorsement of gay marriage, he adds, is providing funeral services for an LGBT person, or an African-American person, an endorsement that they are 鈥減eople who deserve dignity鈥�?

鈥淚t鈥檚 hard to see what the limiting principle is if there鈥檚 no specific message involved,鈥� he continues. 鈥淭hat extends so far beyond anything the Supreme Court ever imagined.鈥�

A right to dignity has been at the heart of American civil rights law, and it is a consistent theme in the Craig and Mullins brief.

鈥淭his case is about us getting turned away and humiliated by a business that鈥檚 open to public,鈥� says Mullins in a conference call with reporters. 鈥淲e never want another couple to go through that pain we鈥檝e gone through.鈥�

鈥楢 hard call鈥� for Kennedy

Justice Kennedy鈥檚 majority opinion in Obergefell affirmed that LGBT people have a constitutional right to 鈥渆qual dignity,鈥� but it also made clear that those 鈥渨ho adhere to religious doctrines may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned.鈥�

On top of being a leading proponent of free speech on the court, Kennedy has also authored the majority opinion in every Supreme Court decision favoring LGBT rights since 1996鈥檚 , which held that Colorado couldn鈥檛 bar people from legal discrimination protections on the basis of sexual orientation. That doesn鈥檛 mean Kennedy sees no limits on gay rights, however. As Adam Liptak, the Supreme Court reporter for The New York Times, told Slate鈥檚 Dahlia Lithwick , Kennedy subscribes to the philosophy that 鈥渓osers get to complain.鈥�

鈥淗e supports at least certain aspects of gay rights, [but] how far he feels it鈥檚 necessary to go in nondiscrimination laws鈥� isn鈥檛 clear, says Steven Green, director of the Center for Religion, Law and Democracy at Willamette University in Salem, Ore., who signed onto the same amicus brief as Tuttle.

鈥淲hat he鈥檒l probably be balancing is the dignity interests of the couple versus the free speech interests of the baker to not express something that goes against his religious beliefs,鈥� adds Steven Schwinn, a professor at the John Marshall School of Law in Chicago. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 going to be a hard call.鈥�