The number of amicus briefs filed in the case of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple will not break the record set in the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 marriage equality cases, but it clearly signals the high stakes involved for civil rights, business and religious communities.

More than 80 briefs in total have been lodged with the justices in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—short of the record 148 in the same-sex marriage challenges.

Not surprisingly, the Masterpiece briefs reflect a familiar divide. Competing briefs have been filed on behalf of chefs, churches, speech and religion law professors, conservative and liberal legal organizations, state attorneys general, members of Congress, and free speech and civil rights groups, among others.

Also familiar in these culture-war type issues is the role of law firms. Major law firms wrote briefs supporting the Colorado civil rights agency and the same-sex couple, including Hogan Lovells; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Covington & Burling; Ropes & Gray; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Munger, Tolles & Olson; and Perkins Coie.

Briefs supporting the baker, Jack Phillips, drew on conservative or religious legal organizations, such as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and smaller firms such as Washington's Lewin & Lewin, Chicago's Mauck & Baker, Langdon Law in West Chester, Ohio, and Whitehead Law Firm in Kansas City, Missouri.

If requests for divided argument time are approved by the justices, the lawyers arguing the case on Dec. 5 will be: U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco and Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop; and Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger and ACLU national legal director David Cole for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the gay couple at the center of the case.

What follows are snapshots from some of the amicus briefs.

Briefs supporting Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips

Christian Legal Society: “The classic American response to deep conflicts like that between gay rights and traditional religious faith is to protect the liberty of both sides. The very arguments that underlie protection of same-sex marriage also support strong protection for religious liberty. Religious believers and same-sex couples each argue that a fundamental component of their identity, and the conduct that flows from that identity, should be left to each individual, free of all nonessential regulation. This case … does not involve any alleged right to generally refuse service to same-sex couples, or to act on conscience in purely commercial contexts. It involves a right to act on conscience in a religious context—in connection with a wedding.” Counsel of Record: Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia Law School.

The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs: “The service that was denied in this case was readily obtained from another source. The only purpose of initiating a proceeding against the petitioners was to override their religious objection to meaningful participation in a same-sex wedding. It is undisputed on this record that the respondent same-sex couple was able, with no inconvenience whatever, to obtain an equivalent free wedding cake from a local wedding-cake artist. Other than having their initial request rejected and having to obtain a wedding cake from one of many other available sources, the same-sex couple was not injured in any way. Indeed, the couple ultimately profited financially from Mr. Phillips' refusal to prepare their requested cake at his customary fee.” Counsel of Record: Nathan Lewin of Lewin & Lewin.

First Amendment Lawyers Association: “While the state cannot deny the benefits of marriage based on sexual orientation, it is equally barred from compelling others to agree with same-sex marriage or to show support for the practice by speech or symbolic act. The Free Speech Clause issue presented for review is entirely dispositive, and the Court need not reach the Free Exercise Clause question. FALA does not endorse Petitioners' actions or the motives on which they are based. The question is solely whether the government may compel a person to speak or to create an artistic work in the service of some social objective, however worthy. One need not agree or disagree with the message in order to protect the rights of a reluctant messenger.” Counsel of Record: Robert Corn-Revere, Davis Wright Tremaine.

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “American citizens should never be forced to choose between their religious faith and their right to participate in the public square. This fundamental vision of our constitutional government is embodied in the First Amendment, which guarantees that all citizens, whether of a particular religious faith or no faith at all, are free both to speak and to act in accord with their conscience. The Free Exercise Clause guarantees every individual the right to seek the truth in religious matters and then adhere to that truth through private and public action.” Counsel of Record: John Bursch, Bursch Law.

William Jack and The National Center for Law and Policy: “The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has demonstrated a willingness to allow bakers to decline to make a custom cake when the message of the cake is objectionable or offensive to the baker, but only if the rejected message is religious or critical of same-sex marriage. A baker must create a cake when the message endorses same-sex marriage. Amici William Jack requested custom cakes with a religious message at three different Denver bakeries, only to be refused service because the bakers disagreed with the religious message. In a set of results that cannot be reconciled with the Masterpiece Cakeshop charge of discrimination, the Commission rejected Jack's charges of discrimination, thereby allow[ing] bakers to decline to make a cake deemed offensive. In this process the Commission expressed hostility towards Jack's traditional religious views.” Counsel of Record: Michael Francisco, MRD Law.

The Human Rights Campaign delivers a “Chefs for Equality” amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM

Briefs for Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Charlie Craig and David Mullins

Thirty-seven businesses and organizations: “First, the Petitioners' proposed exemption from non-discrimination laws based on businesses' provision of expressive goods and services is not administrable for lower courts and, as relevant here, the business community. To determine whether the amici's business partners can opt out of non-discrimination laws on speech grounds, amici would be forced to decide whether certain goods and services are as expressive as baking a cake. Making such determinations is both difficult and resource-consuming for amici. Additionally, the adoption of Petitioners' position, a position that assumes the expressive message of a good or service belongs to the business, would require amici to interrogate their customers to ensure amici are not accidentally endorsing a message or event with which they do not agree.” Counsel of Record: Jon Sallet, Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

First Amendment scholars Floyd Abrams, Vincent A. Blasi, Walter Dellinger, Seth F. Kreimer, Burt Neuborne, Robert Post, Geoffrey R. Stone, and Kathleen Sullivan: “The Court does not need to decide here whether bakers are artists or food scientists. Artists who sell their creations to the public are, like other commercial actors, bound by a variety of generally applicable laws, including laws that forbid businesses to refuse service on certain grounds. If Rembrandt van Rijn puts “The Descent from the Cross” in his shop window—or publicly offers the service of copying the masterwork for a fee—the First Amendment would not condemn a law that says he may not refuse on grounds of ethnicity or religion the business of a Flemish man who wished to hang the painting in a Roman Catholic church. If a vendor sells “Black Lives Matter” signs from her stall, she may not refuse on the basis of race to sell her creations to a white customer who she fears will alter that message.” Counsel of Record: Walter Dellinger, O'Melveny & Myers.

Public accommodation law scholars: “State public accommodation laws across the country have barred discrimination by businesses serving the general public for at least half a century. These laws ban discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion, id.; all but one prohibit sex discrimination. Seventeen reach marital status. Eighteen forbid discrimination based on gender identity, and twenty-one ban sexual orientation discrimination. Hundreds of cities and counties likewise bar discrimination linked to sexual orientation. Thus, an exemption like the one claimed here would allow discrimination on the basis of religion, national origin, disability, sex, and race, as well as sexual orientation.” Counsel of Record: Catherine Weiss, Lowenstein Sandler.

Eighteen states and Washington, D.C.: “States cannot effectively fight discrimination in the commercial marketplace—or in employment, housing, or other contexts—if personal belief operates as a 'law unto itself.' Petitioners' proposed exemption thus risks licensing all manner of harmful discrimination—and risks once again subjecting millions of people to the mercy of business owners as to who is worthy of service. The First Amendment does not bar States' efforts to combat the societal disintegration and economic balkanization caused by this kind of discrimination.” Counsel of Record: Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Jon Burke.

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and Family Equality: “Lambda Legal and Family Equality collectively have received more than a thousand reports from across the country detailing discrimination in public accommodations reaching from cradle to grave: from denials of infertility treatment, birthing classes, midwifery services, and child care to the indignity of being refused funeral services for a deceased loved one. Ranging from humiliating harassment to outright service denials, the reports describe discrimination by pharmacies, hospitals, dental offices, and other medical settings; professional accounting services, automobile dealerships and repair shops, gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, bars, hotels and other lodging; barber shops and beauty salons; stores such as big box retailers, discount stores, pet stores, clothing stores, and toy stores; swimming pools and gyms; libraries and homeless shelters; and transportation services including busses, taxis, ride-shares, trains, air travel, and cruise ships. Discrimination reports included contexts with limited alternate options, such as by tow truck drivers, post office employees, and repair service technicians working in the homes of LGBT customers.” Counsel of Record: Jennifer Pizer, Lambda Legal.

Read more:

The number of amicus briefs filed in the case of a Colorado baker who refused to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple will not break the record set in the U.S. Supreme Court's 2015 marriage equality cases, but it clearly signals the high stakes involved for civil rights, business and religious communities.

More than 80 briefs in total have been lodged with the justices in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission—short of the record 148 in the same-sex marriage challenges.

Not surprisingly, the Masterpiece briefs reflect a familiar divide. Competing briefs have been filed on behalf of chefs, churches, speech and religion law professors, conservative and liberal legal organizations, state attorneys general, members of Congress, and free speech and civil rights groups, among others.

Also familiar in these culture-war type issues is the role of law firms. Major law firms wrote briefs supporting the Colorado civil rights agency and the same-sex couple, including Hogan Lovells; Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom; Covington & Burling; Ropes & Gray; Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld; Munger, Tolles & Olson; and Perkins Coie.

Briefs supporting the baker, Jack Phillips, drew on conservative or religious legal organizations, such as the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, and smaller firms such as Washington's Lewin & Lewin, Chicago's Mauck & Baker, Langdon Law in West Chester, Ohio, and Whitehead Law Firm in Kansas City, Missouri.

If requests for divided argument time are approved by the justices, the lawyers arguing the case on Dec. 5 will be: U.S. Solicitor General Noel Francisco and Kristen Waggoner of Alliance Defending Freedom in support of Masterpiece Cakeshop; and Colorado Solicitor General Frederick Yarger and ACLU national legal director David Cole for the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Charlie Craig and David Mullins, the gay couple at the center of the case.

What follows are snapshots from some of the amicus briefs.

Briefs supporting Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips

Christian Legal Society: “The classic American response to deep conflicts like that between gay rights and traditional religious faith is to protect the liberty of both sides. The very arguments that underlie protection of same-sex marriage also support strong protection for religious liberty. Religious believers and same-sex couples each argue that a fundamental component of their identity, and the conduct that flows from that identity, should be left to each individual, free of all nonessential regulation. This case … does not involve any alleged right to generally refuse service to same-sex couples, or to act on conscience in purely commercial contexts. It involves a right to act on conscience in a religious context—in connection with a wedding.” Counsel of Record: Douglas Laycock, University of Virginia Law School.

The National Jewish Commission on Law and Public Affairs: “The service that was denied in this case was readily obtained from another source. The only purpose of initiating a proceeding against the petitioners was to override their religious objection to meaningful participation in a same-sex wedding. It is undisputed on this record that the respondent same-sex couple was able, with no inconvenience whatever, to obtain an equivalent free wedding cake from a local wedding-cake artist. Other than having their initial request rejected and having to obtain a wedding cake from one of many other available sources, the same-sex couple was not injured in any way. Indeed, the couple ultimately profited financially from Mr. Phillips' refusal to prepare their requested cake at his customary fee.” Counsel of Record: Nathan Lewin of Lewin & Lewin.

First Amendment Lawyers Association: “While the state cannot deny the benefits of marriage based on sexual orientation, it is equally barred from compelling others to agree with same-sex marriage or to show support for the practice by speech or symbolic act. The Free Speech Clause issue presented for review is entirely dispositive, and the Court need not reach the Free Exercise Clause question. FALA does not endorse Petitioners' actions or the motives on which they are based. The question is solely whether the government may compel a person to speak or to create an artistic work in the service of some social objective, however worthy. One need not agree or disagree with the message in order to protect the rights of a reluctant messenger.” Counsel of Record: Robert Corn-Revere, Davis Wright Tremaine.

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops: “American citizens should never be forced to choose between their religious faith and their right to participate in the public square. This fundamental vision of our constitutional government is embodied in the First Amendment, which guarantees that all citizens, whether of a particular religious faith or no faith at all, are free both to speak and to act in accord with their conscience. The Free Exercise Clause guarantees every individual the right to seek the truth in religious matters and then adhere to that truth through private and public action.” Counsel of Record: John Bursch, Bursch Law.

William Jack and The National Center for Law and Policy: “The Colorado Civil Rights Commission has demonstrated a willingness to allow bakers to decline to make a custom cake when the message of the cake is objectionable or offensive to the baker, but only if the rejected message is religious or critical of same-sex marriage. A baker must create a cake when the message endorses same-sex marriage. Amici William Jack requested custom cakes with a religious message at three different Denver bakeries, only to be refused service because the bakers disagreed with the religious message. In a set of results that cannot be reconciled with the Masterpiece Cakeshop charge of discrimination, the Commission rejected Jack's charges of discrimination, thereby allow[ing] bakers to decline to make a cake deemed offensive. In this process the Commission expressed hostility towards Jack's traditional religious views.” Counsel of Record: Michael Francisco, MRD Law.

The Human Rights Campaign delivers a “Chefs for Equality” amicus brief at the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday. Credit: Diego M. Radzinschi / ALM

Briefs for Colorado Civil Rights Commission and Charlie Craig and David Mullins

Thirty-seven businesses and organizations: “First, the Petitioners' proposed exemption from non-discrimination laws based on businesses' provision of expressive goods and services is not administrable for lower courts and, as relevant here, the business community. To determine whether the amici's business partners can opt out of non-discrimination laws on speech grounds, amici would be forced to decide whether certain goods and services are as expressive as baking a cake. Making such determinations is both difficult and resource-consuming for amici. Additionally, the adoption of Petitioners' position, a position that assumes the expressive message of a good or service belongs to the business, would require amici to interrogate their customers to ensure amici are not accidentally endorsing a message or event with which they do not agree.” Counsel of Record: Jon Sallet, Steptoe & Johnson LLP.

First Amendment scholars Floyd Abrams, Vincent A. Blasi, Walter Dellinger, Seth F. Kreimer, Burt Neuborne, Robert Post, Geoffrey R. Stone, and Kathleen Sullivan: “The Court does not need to decide here whether bakers are artists or food scientists. Artists who sell their creations to the public are, like other commercial actors, bound by a variety of generally applicable laws, including laws that forbid businesses to refuse service on certain grounds. If Rembrandt van Rijn puts “The Descent from the Cross” in his shop window—or publicly offers the service of copying the masterwork for a fee—the First Amendment would not condemn a law that says he may not refuse on grounds of ethnicity or religion the business of a Flemish man who wished to hang the painting in a Roman Catholic church. If a vendor sells “Black Lives Matter” signs from her stall, she may not refuse on the basis of race to sell her creations to a white customer who she fears will alter that message.” Counsel of Record: Walter Dellinger, O'Melveny & Myers.

Public accommodation law scholars: “State public accommodation laws across the country have barred discrimination by businesses serving the general public for at least half a century. These laws ban discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and religion, id.; all but one prohibit sex discrimination. Seventeen reach marital status. Eighteen forbid discrimination based on gender identity, and twenty-one ban sexual orientation discrimination. Hundreds of cities and counties likewise bar discrimination linked to sexual orientation. Thus, an exemption like the one claimed here would allow discrimination on the basis of religion, national origin, disability, sex, and race, as well as sexual orientation.” Counsel of Record: Catherine Weiss, Lowenstein Sandler.

Eighteen states and Washington, D.C.: “States cannot effectively fight discrimination in the commercial marketplace—or in employment, housing, or other contexts—if personal belief operates as a 'law unto itself.' Petitioners' proposed exemption thus risks licensing all manner of harmful discrimination—and risks once again subjecting millions of people to the mercy of business owners as to who is worthy of service. The First Amendment does not bar States' efforts to combat the societal disintegration and economic balkanization caused by this kind of discrimination.” Counsel of Record: Massachusetts Assistant Attorney General Jon Burke.

Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund and Family Equality: “Lambda Legal and Family Equality collectively have received more than a thousand reports from across the country detailing discrimination in public accommodations reaching from cradle to grave: from denials of infertility treatment, birthing classes, midwifery services, and child care to the indignity of being refused funeral services for a deceased loved one. Ranging from humiliating harassment to outright service denials, the reports describe discrimination by pharmacies, hospitals, dental offices, and other medical settings; professional accounting services, automobile dealerships and repair shops, gas stations, convenience stores, restaurants, bars, hotels and other lodging; barber shops and beauty salons; stores such as big box retailers, discount stores, pet stores, clothing stores, and toy stores; swimming pools and gyms; libraries and homeless shelters; and transportation services including busses, taxis, ride-shares, trains, air travel, and cruise ships. Discrimination reports included contexts with limited alternate options, such as by tow truck drivers, post office employees, and repair service technicians working in the homes of LGBT customers.” Counsel of Record: Jennifer Pizer, Lambda Legal.

Read more: