Press Statement  AG Campbell Leads Multistate Effort To Defend Laws That Protect LGBTQ People and Others

Boston — Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell has led a multistate coalition of 18 attorneys general in filing an amicus brief in the Colorado Supreme Court in support of a transgender woman who was denied service by a Colorado cakeshop after she informed the business that a pink and blue cake that she ordered was expressive of her gender identity.

In the amicus brief, filed in the case of Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop Inc. (Colo. No. 2023SC116), the coalition defends against legal challenges to Colorado’s anti-discrimination and public accommodations laws.

In the absence of federal protections against discrimination for LGBTQ individuals and other marginalized groups in public establishments, state public accommodations laws play a vital role in protecting individuals from discrimination. And, while Colorado may be the specific venue for the legal challenges to such protections presented in this case, the matter poses a threat to anti-discrimination and public accommodations laws nationwide, including in Massachusetts. 

Through filing of the brief, AG Campbell and the coalition not only defend against national ongoing legal challenges to anti-discrimination laws but also highlight the importance of upholding such legal protections for LGBTQ individuals, who report disproportionately higher rates of discrimination.

“No one should be denied access to goods or services or treated differently because of who they are or how they choose to express themselves. It is deeply saddening that crucial state laws protecting our most vulnerable communities, including LGBTQ individuals, from discrimination are being challenged,” said AG Campbell. “While the specific legal challenges in this case presented themselves in Colorado, they pose a threat to anti-discrimination laws nationwide, and I am proud to lead this multistate effort to safeguard these protections and ensure equality for all.”

In the amicus brief, AG Campbell asks the Colorado Supreme Court to affirm a Colorado appellate court’s decision in favor of the transgender plaintiff, Autumn Scardina, who filed and was successful in a claim alleging discrimination on the basis of gender identity under Colorado public accommodations law. The defendant, Masterpiece Cakeshop, seeks to overturn the lower court’s decision, arguing that the cakeshop’s denial of service, particularly to make a cake that the customer understood as expressive of her gender identity, is constitutionally protected as free speech under the First Amendment.

 The multistate coalition argues against the broadening of First Amendment exemptions to anti-discrimination and public accommodations laws and underscores the importance of upholding such laws to protect LGBTQ individuals and other legally protected groups from discrimination in public establishments.

The case follows the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent 2023 decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis, in which a wedding website designer challenged a Colorado public accommodations law that prohibited her from denying services to LGBTQ individuals based on their LGBTQ status, arguing that being compelled to provide services to LGBTQ individuals violated her constitutional right to free expression. The facts of the case indicated that the designer’s website designs explicitly communicated her views on marriage, including her belief opposing LGBTQ marriages, and were thus expressive in nature.

Today’s amicus brief argues that the First Amendment principle established in 303 Creative is not applicable to the specific facts presented in the Scardina case. The brief emphasizes that the 2023 Supreme Court decision requires courts to conduct a highly fact-intensive analysis of cases arguing for such exemptions. The brief further argues that the specific facts of Scardina indicate that the cakeshop’s goods and services were not inherently expressive, even if employees of the cakeshop disagreed with a customer’s expression of gender identity or LGBTQ status. In fact, during trial, the cakeshop’s owner explicitly stated that the pink and blue cake requested by the transgender customer had no “intrinsic meaning” and did not “express any message” to the cakeshop. As such, the amicus brief asserts that applying Colorado public accommodations law in this case does not violate the First Amendment, and that the cakeshop’s denial of services to a customer simply based on her expressing that her requested cake symbolized her gender identity as transgender is not constitutionally protected.

 The coalition asserts that broad First Amendment exemptions to public accommodations laws would enable more varied and widespread forms of discrimination against vulnerable and historically marginalized groups. LGBTQ individuals are particularly vulnerable to the weakening of such protections, as they are more likely to experience hate crimes in comparison to non-LGBTQ individuals and experience social and emotional detriments related to discrimination. 

The multistate amicus brief in its entirety may be found here.

Joining Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell in filing the amicus brief are the attorneys general of Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawai‘i, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. 

In Massachusetts, this matter was handled by Assistant Attorney General Adam Cambier of the AG’s Civil Rights Division.

This matter is AG Campbell’s latest effort to further one of her recently announced strategic priorities to advance opportunity for all across the Commonwealth, particularly through defense of Massachusetts’ nation-leading civil rights and public accommodations laws. AG Campbell will continue to defend and embody the good of Massachusetts government and its nation-leading public interest laws, both on the state and national level.

Individuals in Massachusetts who believe they have been the victim of a civil rights violation may file a complaint with the AG’s Civil Rights Division.