Activity: Religious Liberty
Megan Boisvert (Stumpner)
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
GOVT 421- American Constitution History
Professor David VanHeemst
August 15, 2025
The Right to Privacy 2
Introduction
The Supreme Court made decisions in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) and Masterpiece
Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) that reflect the complex intersection of
constitutional law and religious freedom in modern America. Both cases have the tension
between equal protection, the free exercise of religion, and judicial interpretation. While
Obergefell established a constitutional right to same-sex marriage under the Fourteenth
Amendment, Masterpiece Cakeshop addressed the rights of religious objectors under the First
Amendment.
Summary and Legal Foundations of Case Obergefell v. Hodges
Obergefell v. Hodges (2015) originated from consolidated lawsuits filed by same-sex couples
across several states, including Ohio, Michigan, Kentucky, and Tennessee (Obergefell v. Hodges).
The people from these states challenged the state bans on same-sex marriage and the refusal to
recognize marriages lawfully performed in other states. The lead plaintiff, James
Obergefell, legally married his partner, John Arthur, in Maryland. When Arthur died, the state of
Ohio refused to list Obergefell as his surviving spouse on the death certificate due to its same-
sex marriage ban.
For this case, the Supreme Court would need to answer the fundamental constitutional
question: Does the Fourteenth Amendment require states to license marriages between two
people of the same sex, and recognize such marriages when lawfully performed in another
state?
The ruling in this case was 5–4, and the Court held that the Fourteenth Amendment
does require states to both license and recognize same-sex marriages. This decision effectively
The Right to Privacy 3
legalized same-sex marriage nationwide, invalidating all state bans. The majority opinion
grounded the decision on the Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment (Obergefell v. Hodges). The Court reasoned that marriage is a right in
the concept of individual liberty, and that denying same-sex couples' access to marriage both
violates their liberty and discriminates against them without sufficient justification.
The opinion of same sex marriage is recognized as the evolving understanding of
marriage and argues that constitutional protections should adapt to ensure that all persons
receive equal rights under the law. The dissenters argued that the decision represented judicial
overreach, and the Constitution does not explicitly define marriage and thus leaves the issue to
democratic processes within the states (Obergefell v. Hodges).
The people who disagreed with same sex marriage criticized the majority for bypassing
the traditional legislative route and accused the Court of federal intrusion into state authority.
The people who disagree with same sex marriage state that marriage has been historically and
religiously defined as between one man and one woman, and that altering this definition was
not the judiciary's role. Justice Roberts stated that the decision had "nothing to do with the
Constitution" and was instead an act of judicial will.
Summary and Legal Foundations of Case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights
Commission.
Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission (2018) arose when Jack
Phillips, a Christian baker and owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, declined
to create a custom wedding cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins, a same-sex couple, in
2012. Phillips explained that while he was willing to sell them other baked goods, his religious
The Right to Privacy 4
beliefs prevented him from designing a cake that would celebrate same-sex weddings (16-111
Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil ...). Craig and Mullins filed a complaint with the
Colorado Civil Rights Commission against the business alleging discrimination under the state's
public accommodations law, which prohibits businesses open to the public from refusing service
based on sexual orientation. The Commission found in favor of the couple, ordering Phillips to
create wedding cakes for same-sex couples if he offered them for opposite-sex couples, and to
implement staff training on non-discrimination laws. Phillips appealed, arguing that designing
the cake violated his First Amendment rights, including the right to the free exercise of religion
and the right against compelled speech. (16-111 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado
Civil ...)
The Supreme Court was asked to determine:
Did the Colorado Civil Rights Commission violate Jack Phillips's First
Amendment rights by compelling him to create expressive content that
conflicted with his religious beliefs and by exhibiting hostility toward those beliefs?
In a 7–2 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Phillips. However, the decision was narrow
in scope, focusing not on whether a business owner can categorically refuse service to same-sex
couples, but rather on whether the state acted with religious neutrality in deciding the case
(16111 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil ...).
Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, held that the Colorado Civil Rights
Commission had failed to treat Phillips's religious beliefs with the required neutrality under the
Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Commissioners made statements during the court
The Right to Privacy 5
proceedings that suggested open hostility toward religion. Kennedy talked about how while
states have a legitimate interest in protecting the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and in receiving
equal access to goods and services, they must enforce the laws in a manner that is neutral
toward religion (16-111 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil ...).
The Commission's decision was based on the application of Colorado's antidiscrimination
law, which applies equally to all public businesses, regardless of the owner's beliefs, and
allowing Phillips to refuse service risked creating a dangerous precedent that opened the door
for businesses to deny goods or services to groups under the guise of religious freedom.
These Decisions in Light of America's Constitutional History
From the earliest days of the American constitutional thought placed a premium on the
protection of religious liberty and the restraint of government power. The First Amendment's
Free Exercise Clause reflected the Founders' belief that faith was a personal matter that is not
subject to government coercion. The Bill of Rights was designed primarily as a shield against
federal intrusion, and states retained broad authority over moral and social regulation.
The constitutional landscape evolved significantly, especially after the Civil War and the
ratification of the Reconstruction Amendments. The Fourteenth Amendment, with its
guarantees of equal protection and due process, is transformed by the relationship between
individuals and the states. Courts recognized a broader spectrum of personal liberties during
the mid-20thcentury Civil Rights era. Landmark decisions such as Brown v. Board of Education
(1954) and Loving v. Virginia (1967) illustrated a shift toward using federal judicial power to
dismantle state-imposed discrimination and ensure substantive equality. This expansion of
The Right to Privacy 6
rights often required courts to balance competing constitutional values, including freedom of
association, equal protection, and the free exercise of religion.
Obergefell v. Hodges and Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission
both illustrate the modern federal judiciary's willingness to intervene when state action and
legislative or administrative action appear to infringe on individual constitutional rights. In
Obergefell, the Court extended the Fourteenth Amendment's guarantees to include the right of
same-sex couples to marry and expanded the civil rights protections in line with evolving
societal norms. The Masterpiece case demonstrates the Court's continued vigilance in
safeguarding religious liberty, even when it conflicts with anti-discrimination laws.
Taken together, the cases show both continuity and divergence from earlier
constitutional trends: continuity in the sense that federal courts remain committed to enforcing
individual rights against state encroachment, but divergence in that the scope of those rights
now encompasses issues such as same-sex marriage and the expressive rights of business
owners that would have been inconceivable to the framers.
These Decisions in Light of the Christian Foundations of America
Early American political discourse assumed a Christian moral framework when
advocating for religious freedom for all faiths. Concepts like natural rights and the equality of all
people before the law drew from both Enlightenment philosophy and scriptural principles,
particularly the belief that humans are created in the image of God. In the Bible, marriage was
understood as a covenantal union between one man and one woman, reflecting a combination
of civil, religious, and cultural norms. For centuries, American law and social practice upheld this
The Right to Privacy 7
definition and were seen as both a moral and social foundation for family life. While states
retained the authority to regulate marriage, their laws uniformly mirrored the Christian
conception, making Obergefell's redefinition of marriage a sharp break from historical
precedent. The Masterpiece Cakeshop decision shows the friction that arises when
individuals attempt to live by the traditional Christian understanding of marriage in a society
where the legal definition has expanded. (16-111 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado
Civil ...) Jack Phillips's refusal to create a custom wedding cake for a same-sex couple was not
grounded in a general denial of service but in his religious beliefs that same sex marriage goes
against his religion.
These Decisions in Light of Specific Constitutional Principles
In the Masterpiece case, the central constitutional issue revolved around the Free
Exercise Clause. The question was not simply whether Phillips could refuse service to same-sex
couples, but if the state would create a conflict with his sincerely held religious beliefs. The
Court's ruling emphasized that anti-discrimination enforcement must be religiously neutral,
leaving the broader issue of when religious convictions must yield to public accommodation
laws.
In the Obergefell case, the Court grounded its decision in both the Equal Protection Clause and
the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The majority reasoned that marriage is
a right, and that denying same-sex couples' access to it both stigmatized them and deprived
them of legal benefits. By framing marriage equality as an extension of liberty and equality, the
Court aligned the decision with past rulings that dismantled discriminatory state laws.
The Right to Privacy 8
These cases expose a constitutional tension and the need to protect civil rights for
LGBTQ+ individuals while preserving the constitutional guarantee of religious freedom. The law
navigates situations where the exercise of one right appears to infringe another, requiring
courts to balance competing values without eroding either to the point of irrelevance.
These Decisions in Light of Methods of Constitutional Adjudication
In Obergefell, the majority adopted a living constitutionalist approach, viewing the
Constitution as a document that guarantees to evolve with societal changes. They all argued
that the principles of liberty and equality must be interpreted in consideration of the
contemporary understandings of marriage. The justices relied on reasoning that the
Constitution does not speak to same-sex marriage and that defining marriage had historically
been the prerogative of the states.
Obergefell is often cited as an example of judicial activism, and the Court redefined a
long-standing social institution through constitutional interpretation rather than legislative
action. The Masterpiece case reflected judicial restraint, with the Court issuing a narrow ruling
that avoided setting a broad precedent and instead focused on the specific facts—namely, the
Colorado Civil Rights Commission's failure to act with religious neutrality.
These cases demonstrate that the method of constitutional interpretation can profoundly shape
outcomes. A living constitutionalist approach tends to expand individual rights considering
modern values, while an originalist approach seeks to preserve historical meanings and limit
judicial power.
The Right to Privacy 9
Conclusion
The cases, Obergefell v. Hodges and the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights
Commission, both reveal the ongoing challenge of balancing both equal protection and religious
liberty in modern America. Obergefell broadened marriage rights under the Fourteenth
Amendment, while Masterpiece upheld the First Amendment's protection of spiritual
expression. Together, both cases demonstrate how constitutional rights can intersect,
necessitating careful judicial navigation. Rooted in a history shaped by Judeo-Christian ethics,
the Constitution now operates within a diverse and evolving society.
References
16-111 Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil ... (n.d.\
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Access your bible from anywhere. BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over
The Right to Privacy 10
150 versions and 50 languages. (n.d.-a). https://www.biblegateway.com/
General principles of constitutional adjudication: The political ... (n.d.-i).
https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2838&context=wmlr
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.-d). Obergefell v. Hodges. Legal Information
Institute.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-556
OU. (n.d.-l). https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=1050&context=onej
