# Amicus Curiae Brief — Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colo. Civil Rights Comm'n, 138 S. Ct. 419 (2017) (No. 16-111) > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0693%3A099 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Amicus Curiae Brief - **Published:** January 1, 2017 ## Text | Supreme Coun, US. FILED SEP 0 / 2017 No. 16-111 OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN THE Supreme Court of the United States Petitioners, Vv. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET. AL.., Respondents. On Writ of Certiorari to the Colorado Court of Appeals BRIEF OF AMICI CURIAE 83 FAMILY POLICY ORGANIZATIONS IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS DAVID FRENCH Counsel of record Senior Fellow NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE 215 Lexington Avenue 11% Floor New York, New York 10016 (931) 446-7572 dfrench@nationalreview.com i QUESTION PRESENTED Whether applying Colorado's public- accommodation law to compel artists to create expression that violates their sincerely held rcligious beliefs about marriage violates the Free Speech or Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment. ll TABLE OF CONTENTS TET OIG PE EME ose snnsessvnrsnvscnsnvsesenssssnceces i pr FP ee lays RESIS oeenenenreereece ill INTEREST OF AMICI CURIAE ...............cccccecceceeeeees | SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .............0..:---2::eeeeseeeeeeee 2 IIIT eabincsttsicscenibecnasss winticd msde nisnsncsssepenensnnccectnseyyene G I. If Freedom of Conscience Can Survive the World’s Worst War, It Should Survive the rE caendionaamiauane 6 Il. Creative Professionals and Corporations Consistently Exercise Their Rights under Barnetie to Promote and Disassociate from Specific Values and Messages. ....................--.-: 13 ill. To Undermine Barnette Is To Cruelly Impoverish the Marketplace of Ideas. .............. 21 IU rceectnsicsicticcancle Apple understands it has a First Amendment right as a corporation to participate [reely in the shaping of pubhe opinion, and it does this by choosing which opinions it will express via the designs of its products and its publicly announced partnerships. The large corporations go even farther. Not only will they not create products that send unacceptable messages, they won't do business in places that promulgate (to them) unacceptable laws. There is no serious effort to call into legal question their ability to do business where they choose to do business (nor should there be), yet the constitutional imposition of such a law would be fur smaller than the constitutional impvusition on Masterpiece Cakeshop. In this case, the state is demanding that a baker not only do business with a certain patron, it’s demanding that he create and speak the patron’s message. How could Colorado prevail and Barnette — and indeed, expressive freedom itself — survive? C USI If the state of Colorado prevails in this case, fundamental First Amendment rights have become 18 Timothy Cook, CEO, Apple, Address at the Newseum's 2017 Free Expression Awards Ceremony (April 18, 2017) (transcript and video available at htips://www.c- span.org/video/?427 127-1/newseum-presents-2017-free- expression-awards). 26 fragile indeed. They survived world war and the pressure for national unification in the face of an existential threat. Can they survive the sexual revolution and the modern pressure for ideological uniformity? That is what this Court will decide. It is important to remember that this Court has clearly distinguished the constitutional right to marry from any legal obligation to adopt the state's view about the nature of marriage. Writing for the majority in Obergefell, Justice Kennedy was clear: Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost. sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensurcs 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 hives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered. 135 S. Ct. at 2607. This is the language that preserves the First Amendment. This is the language that preserves Barnette. The owners of Masterpiece Cakeshop are religious persons who are not willing to violate “the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths.” Or, to put it another way, they are not willing to let any Colorado official, high or petty, “prescribe what shall be orthodox” regarding the 27 institution of marriage “or force citizens to confess hy word or act their faith therein.” May that star remain fixed in our constitutional constellation. The judgment of the court below must be reversed. Respectfully submitted, DAVID FRENCH Counsel of record Senior Fellow NATIONAL REVIEW INSTITUTE 215 Lexington Avenue 11% Floor New York, New York 10016 (931) 446-7572 dfrench@nationalreview.com Jounsel for Amici Curtae September 7, 2017 --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385016_0693%3A099. Public record. Not legal advice.