Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
E5194
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, on narrow grounds, that Colorado officials had shown unconstitutional hostility toward a baker’s religious beliefs when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against his refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
All labels observed (3)
How this entity was disambiguated
This entity first appeared as the object of triple T61142 — resolving that mention is where its identity was fixed. The disambiguator weighed these candidate entities and picked the highlighted one (or “None”, minting a new entity). This is how homonymy is resolved: the same surface form can point to different entities.
Target entity: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Context triple: [Free Exercise Clause, interpretedInCase, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission]
-
A.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion.
-
B.
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions under the Supremacy Clause.
-
C.
Roe v. Wade
Roe v. Wade was a landmark 1973 U.S. Supreme Court decision that recognized a constitutional right to abortion, profoundly shaping American law and politics until it was overturned in 2022.
-
D.
Wickard v. Filburn
Wickard v. Filburn is a landmark 1942 U.S. Supreme Court case that dramatically expanded federal regulatory power by holding that even purely local, non-commercial activity could be regulated under the Commerce Clause if it had a substantial effect on interstate commerce.
-
E.
Helvering v. Davis
Helvering v. Davis is a 1937 U.S. Supreme Court case that upheld the constitutionality of the Social Security Act and broadly affirmed federal power to tax and spend for the general welfare.
- F. None of above. chosen
- G. Unsure - the case is ambiguous/there is not enough information to decide.
Target entity: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Target entity description: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, on narrow grounds, that Colorado officials had shown unconstitutional hostility toward a baker’s religious beliefs when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against his refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
-
A.
Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges is the landmark 2015 U.S. Supreme Court decision that legalized same-sex marriage nationwide by ruling that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry.
-
B.
Arizona v. United States
Arizona v. United States is a 2012 U.S. Supreme Court case that limited state authority over immigration enforcement by affirming broad federal power in this area.
-
C.
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization
Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization is the 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision that overturned Roe v. Wade and ended the federal constitutional right to abortion.
-
D.
Hines v. Davidowitz
Hines v. Davidowitz is a 1941 U.S. Supreme Court case that held federal law preempts conflicting state alien-registration laws under the Supremacy Clause.
-
E.
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council
Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council is a 2000 U.S. Supreme Court case that held a Massachusetts law restricting state business with Burma was preempted by federal sanctions under the Supremacy Clause.
- F. None of above. chosen
Statements (51)
| Predicate | Object |
|---|---|
| instanceOf |
United States Supreme Court case
ⓘ
legal case ⓘ |
| citation | 584 U.S. ___ (2018) ⓘ |
| concurrenceBy |
Clarence Thomas
ⓘ
Elena Kagan ⓘ Neil M. Gorsuch ⓘ Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| constitutionalProvision |
First Amendment to the United States Constitution
ⓘ
Free Exercise Clause ⓘ First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
surface form:
Free Speech Clause
|
| country |
United States of America
ⓘ
surface form:
United States
|
| decisionDate | 2018-06-04 ⓘ |
| didNotHold | that businesses have a broad First Amendment right to refuse service to same-sex couples ⓘ |
| dissentBy | Ruth Bader Ginsburg ⓘ |
| dissentJoinedBy | Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| docketNumber | 16-111 ⓘ |
| holding |
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
self-linksurface differs
ⓘ
surface form:
Colorado Civil Rights Commission violated the Free Exercise Clause by showing hostility toward the baker’s religious beliefs
the Commission’s treatment of the case was inconsistent with the State’s obligation of religious neutrality ⓘ the decision was based on the particular facts of the case and was narrow in scope ⓘ |
| jurisdiction | Supreme Court of the United States ⓘ |
| justiceInDissent |
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
ⓘ
Sonia Sotomayor ⓘ |
| justiceInMajority |
Anthony M. Kennedy
ⓘ
Clarence Thomas ⓘ Elena Kagan ⓘ John G. Roberts Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
John G. Roberts, Jr.
Neil M. Gorsuch ⓘ Samuel A. Alito Jr. ⓘ
surface form:
Samuel A. Alito, Jr.
Stephen G. Breyer ⓘ |
| legalIssue |
First Amendment free exercise of religion
ⓘ
First Amendment to the United States Constitution ⓘ
surface form:
First Amendment freedom of speech
LGBT anti-discrimination protections ⓘ state public accommodations law ⓘ |
| locationOfDispute | Lakewood, Colorado ⓘ |
| majorityOpinionBy | Anthony M. Kennedy ⓘ |
| majorityVote | 7-2 ⓘ |
| notableFor | narrow ruling emphasizing religious neutrality in enforcement of anti-discrimination laws ⓘ |
| originatingCourt | Colorado Civil Rights Commission ⓘ |
| originatingState | Colorado ⓘ |
| party |
Charlie Craig
ⓘ
David Mullins ⓘ |
| petitioner |
Jack Phillips
ⓘ
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. ⓘ |
| respondent | Colorado Civil Rights Commission ⓘ |
| statuteInvolved | Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act ⓘ |
| subjectMatter | refusal to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple ⓘ |
| subsequentHistory | influenced later litigation over conflicts between religious objections and LGBT anti-discrimination laws ⓘ |
| term | October Term 2017 ⓘ |
| topic |
LGBT rights in the United States
ⓘ
public accommodations law ⓘ religious liberty in the United States ⓘ |
How these facts were elicited
The pipeline generated the facts above by prompting gpt-5.1 with this entity's name + description and the instruction below.
You are a knowledge base construction expert. Given a subject entity and a description of it, return factual statements that you know for the subject as a JSON list of dictionaries(triples), where keys must be "subject", "predicate" and "object". The number of facts may be very high, between 25 to 50 or more, for very popular subjects. For less popular subjects, the number of facts can be very low, like 5 or 10. # Requirements - If you don't know the subject at all, return an empty list. - If the subject is not a named entity, return an empty list. - Include at least one triple where predicate is "instanceOf". - Do not get too wordy. - Separate several objects into multiple triples with one object.
Subject: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission Description of subject: Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is a 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case in which the Court ruled, on narrow grounds, that Colorado officials had shown unconstitutional hostility toward a baker’s religious beliefs when enforcing anti-discrimination laws against his refusal to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple.
Referenced by (14)
Full triples — surface form annotated when it differs from this entity's canonical label.