National Review Supreme Court Jack Phillips Religeous Symbols
 | |
| Masterpiece Cakeshop five. Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission | |
| Term: 2017 | |
| Of import Dates | |
| Statement: December 5, 2017 Decided: June iv, 2018 | |
| Issue | |
| Colorado Court of Appeals reversed | |
| Vote | |
| 7 - 2 to reverse | |
| Majority | |
| Main Justice John K. Roberts • Anthony Kennedy • Stephen Breyer • Elena Kagan • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Clarence Thomas | |
| Concurring | |
| Clarence Thomas • Samuel Alito • Neil Gorsuch • Stephen Breyer • Elena Kagan | |
| Dissenting | |
| Ruth Bader Ginsburg • Sonia Sotomayor | |
In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Ceremonious Rights Commission , the U.S. Supreme Court held on June 4, 2018, that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the country's ramble obligation to treat religious expression neutrally when it showed religious hostility in an anti-discrimination case involving a baker who refused on religious grounds to make a wedding ceremony cake for a same-sex activity couple. The court reversed the commission'south conclusion requiring the bakery to provide wedding ceremony cakes to same-sex activity couples but did non dominion on the broader constitutional questions of freedom of religion and anti-bigotry.
Masterpiece Cakeshop was argued during the October 2017 term. Statement in the example was held on December v, 2017. The case came on a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals.
The case generated significant public attention equally i of the nearly important cases of the term. Brennan Linsley of Politico called the instance "a culture wars blockbuster."[1] SCOTUSBlog, a weblog dedicated to the U.South. Supreme Court, conducted a legal symposium on the instance. Writing for The Washington Mail, Craig Konnoth said the case, "is an important and dangerous boxing in the broader war betwixt religion and spoken language rights that conservatives claim on one hand, and LGBT rights, contraceptive access and compliance with wellness-care laws on the other."[two]
HIGHLIGHTS
You can review the lower court'southward opinion here.[5]
Background
This was a case about whether Colorado's public accommodations law requiring a baker to make a wedding cake for a aforementioned-sexual activity couple violates the baker'south rights to freedom of religious practise and liberty of expression under the First Amendment. The law at issue was the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). When this case was before the Supreme Court, CADA stated, "Information technology is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to turn down, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of ... sexual orientation ... the full and equal enjoyment of the appurtenances, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation." Applied to businesses like bakeries, CADA meant at the time that if a business concern is by and large open to the public, the business concern cannot reject to exercise business organisation with a customer because of that customer's sexual orientation. Separately, the Showtime Amendment both protects free spoken language and prohibits the government from compelling expression or expressive comport that violates sincerely held religious behavior.
In July 2012, Charlie Craig and David Mullins requested that Masterpiece Cakeshop pattern and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding ceremony. Jack C. Phillips, the owner, refused, informing Craig and Mullins that he did not design wedding cakes for same-sex couples considering he objected to aforementioned-sexual activity marriage on religious grounds. He offered to sell them whatever other type of broiled skillful.[5] [half-dozen]
Craig and Mullins filed discrimination charges against Masterpiece under CADA with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (Segmentation). They argued that Phillips' refusal to make a hymeneals cake for their aforementioned-sex wedding violated CADA'southward prohibition confronting discrimination based on sexual orientation considering Phillips designed nuptials cakes for heterosexual couples. An administrative law judge (ALJ) with Colorado'southward Office of Administrative Courts found in favor of Craig and Mullins. The Division investigated the charges and found probable cause to back up their allegation of discrimination. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) upheld the ALJ's order and issued a cease-and-desist order requiring that Masterpiece "(1) accept remedial measures, including comprehensive staff training and amending to the visitor's policies to ensure compliance with CADA; and (2) file quarterly compliance reports for two years with the Partitioning describing the remedial measures taken to comply with CADA and documenting all patrons who are denied service and the reasons for the denial."[5]
Phillips appealed the Commission's society to the Colorado Courtroom of Appeals. First, he acknowledged that Masterpiece was a identify of public accommodation and covered past CADA, but he argued that he had not violated CADA. He emphasized that he would have complied with the law by selling them any baked goods except a wedding cake. He argued that his refusal to serve Craig and Mullins was not due to their sexual orientation simply to their conduct — their decision to marry — and that refusal of service based on their acquit was not prohibited by CADA. Second, Phillips argued that the Commission's guild violated his First Amendment rights. Phillips argued that unlike other baked appurtenances, the creation of a wedding cake would compel expressive carry that violated his religious beliefs.[5]
Console opinion
A 3-approximate panel of the court composed of Principal Approximate Alan Loeb and Judges Daniel Taubman and Michael Berger heard the entreatment. In an opinion authored by Judge Taubman, the panel unanimously upheld the Commission's order in favor of Craig and Mullins.
First, Judge Taubman rejected Phillips' argument that his refusal to brand the wedding cake was based on Craig and Mullins' bear rather than their sexual orientation. He wrote that their deport was as well closely tied to their sexual orientation condition to separate the ii:
| " | [Phillips] distinguishes between discrimination based on a person's status and discrimination based on a deport closely correlated with that condition. However, the United States Supreme Courtroom has recognized that such distinctions are generally inappropriate. ... the Supreme Court recognized that, in some cases, conduct cannot be divorced from status. This is so when the conduct is so closely correlated with the status that it is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by persons who have that particular status. We conclude that the act of aforementioned-sex union constitutes such comport considering information technology is 'engaged in exclusively or predominantly' by gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. Masterpiece's distinction, therefore, is one without a divergence. But for their sexual orientation, Craig and Mullins would not have sought to enter into a aforementioned-sex union, and simply for their intent to practise so, Masterpiece would not have denied them its services.[5] [7] | " |
Taubman turned to Phillips' contention that making wedding cakes is expressive conduct that is protected under the First Amendment. Taubman wrote, "In deciding whether conduct is 'inherently expressive,' nosotros ask whether '[a]n intent to convey a particularized message was present, and [whether] the likelihood was groovy that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.'" In the court's view, the crafting of a wedding cake did not create a swell likelihood that viewers would attribute the cake'due south message to Phillips personally. Taubman continued:
| " | To the extent that the public infers from a Masterpiece wedding block a message celebrating aforementioned-sex union, that bulletin is more than likely to be attributed to the client than to Masterpiece . . . The public recognizes that, as a for-profit baker, Masterpiece charges its customers for its goods and services. The fact that an entity charges for its goods and services reduce the likelihood that a reasonable observer volition believe that information technology supports the bulletin expressed in its finished production. Goose egg in the record supports the conclusion that a reasonable observer would interpret Masterpiece's providing a wedding cake for a same-sex couple equally an endorsement of aforementioned-sex marriage, rather than a reflection of its desire to conduct business organization in accordance with Colorado'south public accommodations constabulary.[5] [vii] | " |
Petitioner's claiming
Masterpiece Cakeshop, the petitioner, challenged the holding of the Colorado Court of Appeals. Masterpiece argued that the Colorado court'south decision was at odds "with 9th and Eleventh Circuit decisions regarding the costless speech communication protection of art ... and conflicts with gratuitous exercise rulings by the Tertiary, Sixth, and Tenth Circuits."[3]
Certiorari granted
On July 22, 2016, Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack C. Phillips, the petitioners, initiated proceedings in the Supreme Court of the U.s.a. in filing a petition for a writ of certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals. The U.Due south. Supreme Court granted the request for certiorari on June 26, 2017. Statement in the case was held on December 5, 2017.[iii]
Question presented
"Whether applying Colorado's public accommodations law to compel Phillips to create expression that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs nigh wedlock violates the Free Oral communication or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment."[3]
Audio
- Sound of oral argument:[8]
Transcript
- Transcript of oral argument:[ix]
Outcome
Decision
On June 4, 2018, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled 7-2 in favor of Phillips, reversing the decision made past the Colorado Court of Appeals. The majority comprised Chief Justice John Roberts and Acquaintance Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, Neil Gorsuch, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas. Associate Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Sonia Sotomayor dissented.[4]
Majority stance
Acquaintance Justice Anthony Kennedy penned the majority decision, which was joined by Primary Justice John Roberts and Acquaintance Justices Stephen Breyer, Samuel Alito, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch.[4] Kennedy wrote that the case involved a difficult balancing of interests: first, "the dominance of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination"; second, "the correct of all persons to do key freedoms under the Commencement Subpoena," including freedom of speech and freedom of religious expression. Simply in this case, the court did not reach the core constitutional questions involved in the Colorado law or Phillips' refusal. Instead, Kennedy concluded that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission had violated the state's ramble obligation to treat religious expression neutrally by appearing hostile to religious behavior. Those violations alone, he continued, required the court to reverse the Colorado Courtroom of Appeals' determination.
| " | Whatever the confluence of spoken communication and free exercise principles might exist in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State'southward obligation of religious neutrality . . . The frail question of when the complimentary practise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid practise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, withal, was non met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Committee considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.[4] [7] | " |
Kennedy expressly left open up the question of whether Phillips would prevail on the merits in a example where the arbitrament procedure was off-white. He described the balancing of interests at play in the instance and the challenges of determining what conduct was expressive and protected under the First Amendment. He wrote, "Any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in effect be allowed to put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will exist used for gay marriages,' something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons."
Setting aside those considerations, Kennedy concluded, "The Civil Rights Commission'due south handling of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection . . . However later cases raising these or like concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission's order must be invalidated.[iv]
Concurrence by Justice Kagan
Justice Elena Kagan concurred in the court's decision and also wrote separately, joined past Justice Stephen Breyer. Kagan agreed with the majority that the Committee's consideration had violated Phillips' rights. She wrote to emphasize her understanding of the courts' and Phillips' references to the cases of three other bakers. In those case, Kagan wrote, the Commission ruled in favor of bakers who had refused to make "cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of aforementioned-sex marriage, along with religious text," for a customer named William Jack. Kagan argued that those cases were distinguishable from Phillips' instance. In those cases, she argued, the customer asked the bakers to make cakes the baker would not take made for anyone; in Phillips' cases, she continued, Phillips refused to make a cake for a same-sex couple even though he would have made the same cake for an opposite sex couple.[four]
| " | The iii bakers in the Jack cases did not violate that law. Jack requested them to brand a block (one denigrating gay people and same-sex wedlock) that they would not have made for any client. In refusing that request, the bakers did not single out Jack considering of his religion, but instead treated him in the same way they would accept treated anyone else—just equally CADA requires. By contrast, the aforementioned-sex couple in this example requested a nuptials block that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex activity couple. In refusing that request, Phillips contravened CADA'due south need that customers receive 'the total and equal enjoyment' of public accommodations irrespective of their sexual orientation . . . I read the Courtroom's opinion every bit fully consistent with that view.[4] [7] | " |
Concurrence by Justice Gorsuch
Justice Neil Gorsuch concurred in the court'southward decision and as well wrote separately, joined by Justice Samuel Alito. Gorsuch read the majority'southward opinion and the Committee'due south rulings in the William Jack cases differently than Kagan did. Gorsuch argued that the Commission erred in failing to treat Phillips' case in exactly the aforementioned way as information technology did the cases of the three bakers who refused to make the anti-aforementioned sexual activity marriage cake for William Jack—in other words, he argued that the Commission should have found in Phillips' favor for the same reasons information technology establish in favor of the bakers in those cases. Gorsuch believed that all four bakers were in the same situation. He wrote:
| " | The facts show that the two cases share all legally salient features. In both cases, the effect on the client was the same: bakers refused service to persons who bore a statutorily protected trait (religious faith or sexual orientation). Simply in both cases the bakers refused service intending only to honor a personal conviction . . . [T]he bakers in the starting time case would have refused to sell a cake denigrating aforementioned-sex marriage to an atheist customer, just every bit the baker in the second case would have refused to sell a cake celebrating same-sex activity wedlock to a heterosexual client. And the bakers in the showtime instance were mostly happy to sell to persons of faith, merely equally the baker in the second instance was generally happy to sell to gay persons. In both cases, it was the kind of cake, non the kind of client, that mattered to the bakers.[4] [7] | " |
Gorsuch concluded, "The problem hither is that the Commission failed to act neutrally by applying a consequent legal rule."[iv]
Concurrence by Justice Thomas
Justice Clarence Thomas concurred in the court's judgment but not in the majority opinion. Thomas wrote separately, and his concurrence was joined by Justice Neil Gorsuch. In line with the reasoning of Justice Gorsuch's concurrence, Thomas would have decided the case based on the Commission'south ruling, rather than on the fairness of the procedure of arbitrament. Referring to the dissimilar outcomes in the Commission's decisions in the William Jack cases and in this instance, Thomas wrote, "Although the Commissioners' comments are certainly disturbing, the discriminatory application of Colorado's public-accommodations law is enough on its own to violate Phillips' rights.[4]
Addressing a question not directly resolved by the court'southward ruling, Thomas argued that the deed of making a hymeneals block was expressive comport and was therefore protected by the First Amendment.
| " | Past forcing Phillips to create custom wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, Colorado'southward public-accommodations law 'modify[due south] the expressive content' of his bulletin. The meaning of expressive conduct, this Court has explained, depends on 'the context in which it occur[s].' Forcing Phillips to brand custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sexual practice weddings are 'weddings' and suggest that they should exist historic—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Subpoena prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to 'bear witness to [these] fact[s],' or to 'affir[yard] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees.'[iv] [vii] | " |
Dissent by Justice Ginsburg
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg dissented from the courtroom'due south ruling, joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Ginsburg argued that the evidence of hostility to organized religion cited by the majority was not "of the kind we take previously held to indicate a free-exercise violation." Ginsburg agreed with the distinction Justice Kagan fabricated between the cases of the bakers approached past William Jack and this case. Jack, she wrote, requested a cake with specific images, statements, and Bible verses designed to express rejection of aforementioned-sex matrimony:
| " | In contrast to Jack, Craig and Mullins simply requested a wedding cake: They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the block they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips would take sold . . . The bakers would accept refused to brand a cake with Jack's requested message for any client, regardless of his or her faith. And the bakers visited by Jack would take sold him whatever baked appurtenances they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries' refusal to brand Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips' refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a baker for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake jubilant their hymeneals—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied.[4] [7] | " |
Ginsburg also rejected the majority's reliance on comments made by some of the commissions. She concluded, "Any one may recall of the statements in historical context, I run across no reason why the comments of ane or ii Commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips' refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins.[4]
The opinion
Aftermath
Reactions
The following is a sample of reactions to the courtroom'south ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Committee:
| " | Jack serves all customers; he merely declines to express messages or celebrate events that violate his deeply held religious beliefs. Creative professionals who serve all people should be gratuitous to create art consistent with their convictions without the threat of regime penalisation.[10] [7] | " |
| —Kristen Waggoner, Brotherhood Defending Freedom Senior Counsel | ||
| " | The court reversed the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision based on concerns unique to the case but reaffirmed its longstanding rule that states can prevent the harms of discrimination in the marketplace, including against LGBT people.[10] [7] | " |
| —Louise Melling, deputy legal manager of the American Ceremonious Liberties Union | ||
| " | Iv of the Justices did talk virtually the free oral communication issues here, and they split 2-to-2 (Justices Thomas and Alito would have accepted the free speech claim, and Justices Ginsburg and Sotomayor would have rejected it given the facts of this case, which in their view didn't involve any expression on the cake at all). But for now, the important point is that the free speech debate, as well equally the broader religious adaptation argue, remains unresolved.[11] [7] | " |
| —Eugene Volokh, Reason | ||
| " | Masterpiece is a win for gay rights groups that want to bar discrimination confronting aforementioned-sex activity couples, and so long as the constabulary is practical neutrally and without hostility to faith. Just whether the very same police could sometimes violate free voice communication rights is even so totally open up.[12] [vii] | " |
| —SCOTUSblog | ||
| " | Today's determination is remarkably narrow, and leaves for another 24-hour interval virtually of the major constitutional questions that this case presented. It's hard to see the decision setting a precedent.[ten] [seven] | " |
| —Steve Vladeck, CNN Supreme Court analyst and professor at the University of Texas Schoolhouse of Police | ||
| " | SCOTUS did non dominion that bakery's refusal to bake block for aforementioned sex couple was constitutional. Court ruled the CO Human Rts Commn tribunal that ruled against the bakery in MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP was not neutral but hostile to the claim. Baker was entitled to impartial decisionmaker.[13] [7] | " |
| —Sherrilyn Ifill, President and Managing director-Counsel of NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund | ||
| " | No, the Courtroom did not issue the sweeping costless-speech ruling that many advocates hoped for and others feared. Instead information technology issued a ruling that reminded state regime that people of faith have the verbal aforementioned rights — and are entitled to the exact aforementioned treatment — as people of different faith or no faith at all. And information technology did so in an opinion that decisively rejected the exact talking points so favored by the anti-religious left."[fourteen] [7] | " |
| —David French, senior writer for National Review | ||
| " | The Court's reasoning is bizarre. The two cryptic statements of one of the Commissioners do not even qualify as evidence that the Commissioner who made the statements was biased against the baker, much less that the vii-member Commission was impermissibly biased, or that any such bias played a role in the decision making process.[15] [7] | " |
| —Richard J. Pierce Jr., Lyle T. Alverson Professor of Police force at George Washington University Constabulary School | ||
2018: Phillips cited for 2nd violation
In June 2018, the Colorado Civil Rights Commisssion ruled in a separate instance that at that place was probable cause to believe Phillips violated country police force by refusing to bake a block to gloat a gender transition from male to female.[16]
The following is a sample of reactions to the committee's ruling:
| " | The state of Colorado is ignoring the message of the U.S. Supreme Courtroom past standing to single out Jack for punishment and to exhibit hostility toward his religious beliefs.[16] [7] | " |
| —Kristen Waggoner, Senior vice president of U.S. legal division, Brotherhood Defending Liberty | ||
| " | The vii-to-ii Supreme Court determination [in Masterpiece Cakeshop] was in favor of Phillips — but focused on his treatment by the Colorado Civil Rights Commission and did non necessarily ready a standard for futurity similar cases.[17] [7] | " |
| —Amy B. Wang, reporter at The Washington Post | ||
Encounter also
Footnotes
- ↑ Pol, "The Most Important Cake in America," December 4, 2017
- ↑ The Washington Post, " No matter how the Masterpiece Cakeshop case is decided, gay rights win," December 6, 2017
- ↑ three.0 3.one 3.2 3.3 Supreme Court of the U.s., Masterpiece Cakeshop five. Co. Civil Rights Committee, June 26, 2017
- ↑ 4.00 4.01 iv.02 4.03 four.04 iv.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 iv.09 iv.10 four.11 iv.12 Supreme Court of the United States, "Masterpiece Cakeshop 5. Colorado Civil Rights Commission: Decision," June iv, 2018 Cite fault: Invalid
<ref>tag; proper noun "june4decision" defined multiple times with different content - ↑ 5.0 v.1 5.2 5.three v.4 5.5 Colorado Court of Appeals, Charlie Craig and David Mullins v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., and any successor entity, and Jack C. Phillips, and Colorado Civil Rights Committee, August 13, 2015
- ↑ No party or court has questioned Phillips' sincerely-held religious beliefs.
- ↑ vii.00 7.01 7.02 7.03 7.04 seven.05 7.06 vii.07 7.08 vii.09 7.10 vii.11 vii.12 7.13 seven.14 7.xv 7.16 Annotation: This text is quoted verbatim from the original source. Any inconsistencies are attributable to the original source.
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United States, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, argued December five, 2017
- ↑ Supreme Court of the United states of america, Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, argued December v, 2017
- ↑ 10.0 10.1 10.2 CNN, "Supreme Court rules for Colorado bakery in same-sex hymeneals cake case," June 4, 2018
- ↑ Reason, "The Masterpiece Cakeshop Decision Leaves Almost All the Big Questions Unresolved," June iv, 2018
- ↑ Twitter, "SCOTUSblog," accessed June 4, 2018
- ↑ Twitter, "Sherrilyn Ifill," accessed June 4, 2018
- ↑ National Review, "In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Justice Kennedy Strikes a Blow for the Dignity of the True-blue," June 4, 2018
- ↑ Detect & Annotate, "The Colorado Baker Opinion Should Not Be Considered an Authoritative Police force Precedent, by Richard J. Pierce, Jr.," accessed June 7, 2018
- ↑ 16.0 16.1 HotAir, "Retaliation? Masterpiece Cakeshop Comes Under Fire From Colorado Officials – Again; Update: Did Colorado Autumn For A Troll?" August xv, 2018
- ↑ The Washington Post, "Baker claims religious persecution over again — this time later on denying cake for transgender adult female," August xv, 2018
| |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Agile justices | Master justice: Roberts | ||
| Senior justices | Kennedy • O'Connor • Souter | ||
| Former chief justices | Burger • Chase • Ellsworth • Fuller • Hughes • Jay • Marshall • Rehnquist • Rutledge • Stone • Taft • Taney • Vinson • Waite • Warren • White | ||
| Former acquaintance justices | Baldwin • Barbour • Black • Blackmun • Blair • Blatchford • Bradley • Brandeis • Brennan • Brewer • Brown • Burton • Butler • Byrnes • Campbell • Cardozo • Catron • Chase • Clark • Clarke • Clifford • Curtis • Cushing • Daniel • Davis • Day • Douglas • Duvall • Field • Fortas • Frankfurter • Ginsburg • Goldberg • Grayness • Grier • Harlan I • Harlan II • Holmes • Hunt • Iredell • H. Jackson • R. Jackson • T. Johnson • Westward. Johnson, Jr. • J. Lamar • L. Lamar • Livingston • Lurton • Marshall • Matthews • McKenna • McKinley • McLean • McReynolds • Miller • Minton • Moody • Moore • White potato • Nelson • Paterson • Peckham • Pitney • Powell • Reed • Roberts • W. Rutledge • Sanford • Scalia • Shiras • Stevens • Stewart • Story • Strong • Sutherland • Swayne • Thompson • Todd • Trimble • Van Devanter • Washington • Wayne • B. White • Whittaker • Wilson • Woodbury • Forest | ||
| Ballotpedia | |
|---|---|
| Nearly | Overview • What people are saying • Support Ballotpedia • Contact • Contribute • Job opportunities |
| Executive: Leslie Graves, President • Gwen Beattie, Primary Operating Officer • Ken Carbullido, Vice President of Election Product and Technology Strategy Communications: Megan Brown • Abigail Campbell • Sarah Groat • Lauren Nemerovski Contributors: Scott Rasmussen | |
| Editorial | Geoff Pallay, Editor-in-Chief • Daniel Anderson, Managing Editor • Ryan Byrne, Managing Editor • Cory Eucalitto, Managing Editor • Mandy Gillip, Managing Editor • Jerrick Adams • Victoria Antram • Dave Beaudoin • Jaclyn Beran • Marielle Bricker • Kate Carsella • Kelly Coyle • Megan Feeney • Nicole Fisher • Juan García de Paredes • Sara Horton • Tyler King • Doug Kronaizl • Amee LaTour • David Luchs • Brittony Maag • Roneka Matheny • Andrew McNair • Jackie Mitchell • Elisabeth Moore • Ellen Morrissey • Mackenzie Murphy • Samantha Post • Paul Rader • Ethan Rice • Myj Saintyl • Maddie Sinclair Johnson • Abbey Smith • Janie Valentine • Caitlin Vanden Boom • Joel Williams • Samuel Wonacott • Mercedes Yanora |
Source: https://ballotpedia.org/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
0 Response to "National Review Supreme Court Jack Phillips Religeous Symbols"
Post a Comment