Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc. v. Elenis

445 F.Supp.3d 1226

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP INCORPORATED, a Colorado corporation; and Jack Phillips, Plaintiffs,

v.Aubrey ELENIS, Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, in her official and individual capacities; Anthony Aragon, as member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in his official and individual capacities; Miguel "Michael" Rene Elias, as member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in his official and individual capacities; Carol Fabrizio, as member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in her official and individual capacities; Charles Garcia, as member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in his official and individual capacities; Rita Lewis, as member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in her official and individual capacities; Jessica Pocock, as member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in her official and individual capacities; Ajay Menon, as member of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in his official and individual capacities Cynthia H. Coffman, Colorado Attorney General, in her official capacity; and John Hickenlooper, Colorado Governor, in his official capacity, Defendants.

Civil Action No. 18-cv-02074-WYD-STV

United States District Court, D. Colorado.

Signed January 4, 2019

David Andrew Cortman, Alliance Defending Freedom, Lawrenceville, GA, Jacob Paul Warner, Jonathan Andrew Scruggs, Katherine Leone Anderson, Kristen Kellie Waggoner, Roger Greenwood Brooks, Ryan Jeffrey Tucker, James A. Campbell, Alliance Defending Freedom, Scottsdale, AZ, Nicolle H. Martin, Nicolle H. Martin, Attorney at Law, Lakewood, CO, for Plaintiffs.

Grant T. Sullivan, Jacquelynn Nichole Rich Fredericks, LeeAnn Morrill, Michael D. McMaster, Vincent Edward Morscher, Colorado Attorney General's Office, Denver, CO, for Defendants Aubrey Elenis, Aubrey (I) Elenis, Anthony Aragon, Anthony (I) Aragon, Miguel Rene Elias, Miguel (I) Rene Elias, Carol Fabrizio, Carol (I) Fabrizio, Charles Garcia, Charles (I) Garcia, Rita Lewis, Rita (I) Lewis, Jessica Pocock, Jessica (I) Pocock, Ajay Menon, Ajay (I) Menon, Philip Weiser.

Grant T. Sullivan, Jacquelynn Nichole Rich Fredericks, LeeAnn Morrill, Vincent Edward Morscher, Colorado Attorney General's Office, Denver, CO, for Defendant John Hickenlooper.

ORDER

Wiley Y. Daniel, Senior United States District Judge

I. INTRODUCTION

On June 4, 2018, the United States Supreme Court held the Colorado Civil Rights Division ("Division") and the Colorado Civil Rights Commission ("Commission") treated Jack Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., with hostility "inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion" when the Division and the Commission found that Phillips¹ discriminated against a same-sex couple by refusing to make them a wedding cake. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n (Masterpiece I ), ––– U.S. ––––, 138 S.Ct. 1719, 1732, 201 L.Ed.2d 35 (2018). The Division's and the Commission's "clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated [Phillips’] objection" to creating the custom wedding cake manifested itself in two ways. Id. at 1729-30. First, Commission members made disparaging comments about Phillips’ faith at public hearings. Id. at 1729. And second, the Division and the Commission treated Phillips differently from three other bakeries by allowed those bakeries to refuse a customer's request to make a cake that would have violated their secular values, while requiring Phillips to produce a cake that would have violated his sacred beliefs. Id. at 1730.

Weeks after the Supreme Court announced Masterpiece I , the Division issued a new probable cause determination against Phillips, alleging that he discriminated against a different customer because of the customer's transgender status. (ECF No. 51 ("Complaint"), ¶¶ 211, 216). The Commission also claimed Phillips discriminated against the customer and filed a formal complaint against him. (Id. at ¶ 230).

Tired of Colorado's "continuing efforts to target Phillips" and "unconstitutional bullying," Phillips filed this suit against Defendants. (Id. at ¶ 8). Phillips alleges that the new probable cause determination and formal complaint violate his First Amendment rights to free exercise of religion and free speech and his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process and equal protection. Among other remedies, he asks for injunctive relief, declaratory judgment, and monetary compensation.

The Defendants are Aubrey Elenis, the Director of the Division, seven members of the Commission ("Defendant Commissioners"), Cynthia Coffman, the Attorney General of Colorado, and John Hickenlooper, the Governor of Colorado. Director Elenis and the Defendant Commissioners are sued in their official and individual capacities. The Attorney General and the Governor are sued only in their official capacities.

On November 6, 2018, Defendants filed a Motion to Dismiss ("Motion") pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). (ECF No. 64). The Motion argues that Phillips’ suit should be dismissed in its entirety on four different abstention grounds. The Motion also argues that various claims should be dismissed because Defendants are immune from suit and Phillips lacks standing. Phillips filed a response and Defendants replied. (ECF Nos. 81, 86). I held a hearing on December 18, 2018 to address the arguments related to Defendants’ Motion ("Motion Hearing"). Based on the allegations in the Complaint and the parties’ oral and written arguments, the Motion is denied in part and granted in part.

II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

In this recitation of the alleged facts, I accepted the well-pleaded allegations in the Complaint as true. Holt v. United States , 46 F.3d 1000, 1002 (10th Cir. 1995). I also drew from the Division's probable cause determination and the Commission's formal complaint because they were attached to the Complaint, incorporated into the Complaint by reference, and the parties do not dispute the authenticity of these documents. See Tal v. Hogan , 453 F.3d 1244, 1264 n.24 (10th Cir. 2006) ("Exhibits attached to a complaint are properly treated as part of the pleadings for purposes of ruling on a motion to dismiss."); Jacobsen v. Deseret Book Co. , 287 F.3d 936, 941 (10th Cir. 2002). And I relied on the relevant portions of the United States Supreme Court's decision in Masterpiece I .

A. How Phillips Operates his Business

Phillips is a cake artist. (Compl. ¶ 83). He started Masterpiece in 1993 as a bakery that designs and creates custom cakes and other baked goods. (Id. at ¶¶ 84-86). Masterpiece has fashioned all kinds of custom cakes, including those that resemble the Gutenberg Bible, a racecar, a guitar, and a crab boil. (Id. at ¶¶ 86).

Phillips reviews every custom cake order Masterpiece receives. (Id. at ¶ 130). When potential customers request a custom cake, the employee who answers the call asks about the cake's type, design, and message, and what event the cake is intended to celebrate. (Id. at ¶ 131). If Phillips agrees to make the custom cake, he sketches the design on paper, bakes the cake, and sculpts the baked cake into the desired form. (Id. at ¶¶ 89-92). Finally, Phillips decorates the cake using painting and sculpting techniques and inscribing words, numbers, or designs. (Id. at ¶ 93).

Phillips is not only a cake artist, but a Christian. (Id. at ¶ 95). His faith teaches him "whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God." 1 Corinthians 10:31; (Compl. ¶ 97). According to this teaching, and other instructions from the New Testament, Phillips operates Masterpiece as an extension of his religious convictions. (Compl. ¶ 97). Phillips’ faith informs what he will and will not do.

Some of the things that he will do through Masterpiece include hosting Bible studies at the bakery, providing free baked goods to homeless men and women, and closing his business on Sundays to allow himself and his employees to attend religious services. (Id. at ¶¶ 100-02). Phillips sells custom cakes to anyone who requests them, regardless of the customer's race, faith, sexual orientation, or gender identity. (See id. at ¶¶ 103, 125, 129). Phillips also sells pre-made items, like brownies, cookies, and generic cakes to anyone. (Id. at ¶¶ 132-34).

But Phillips will not "create custom cakes that express messages or celebrate events in conflict with his religious beliefs" no matter who requests them. (Id. at ¶¶ 107, 124, 128). Phillips has declined to make cakes that "demean LGBT people," express racist views, celebrate Halloween, promote marijuana and alcohol, support Satan or satanic themes or beliefs, and, most famously, celebrate same-sex marriage. (See id. at ¶¶ 111-22). Relevant to this suit, Phillips will not create custom cakes "that express or celebrate messages in conflict with [his] religious beliefs about sex." (Id. at ¶ 127). These beliefs instruct "that sex—the status of being male or female—is given by God, is biologically determined, is not determined by perceptions or feelings, and cannot be chosen or changed." (Id. at ¶ 126).

B. Other Colorado Bakeries Refuse to Create Custom Cakes

At some point after 2013, a man named William Jack went to three different Colorado cake shops to request cakes that "conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text." Masterpiece I , 138 S.Ct. at 1730. Specifically, Jack requested cakes "that looked like Bibles, that bore an image depicting two groomsmen covered with a red ‘X,’ and that included bible verses conveying the religious basis for his opposition to same-sex marriage." (Compl. ¶¶ 70, 73, 161). The owners of the three bakeries declined to make these cakes because they "objected to those cakes’ messages and would not create them for anyone." (Id. at ¶ 74); see also Masterpiece I , 138 S.Ct. at 1730 (explaining why the bakeries declined to make the cakes). Jack then filed discrimination charges against the...