Religion Law Quiz #26 (Supreme Court -- LGBTQ -- Religious Exercise)

The Supreme Court's 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision recognized "that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth."  Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado C.R. Comm'n, 201 L. Ed. 2d 35, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1727 (2018).  The Supreme Court then reiterated legal principles related to that.  What did the Supreme Court say in that regard? 

 

(Scroll down for the answer)

 

 

 

 

Here is the specific quote from the opinion:

 

Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. As this Court observed in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ––––, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015), “[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Id., at ––––, 135 S.Ct., at 2607. Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law. See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, n. 5, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968) (per curiam ); see also Hurley v. Irish–American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 572, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) (“Provisions like these are well within the State's usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments”).

 

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado C.R. Comm'n, 201 L. Ed. 2d 35, 138 S. Ct. 1719, 1727 (2018).