News & Insights

Recent Posts

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Julie A. Weerth to the Firm's New York Office

Temp Agency Absolved of Liability in Hotly Contested Action

Alternative Fee Agreements and Construction Issues: Oil and Water or Perfect Pairing!?

WSHB's Graham Miller Helps Demystify Construction Claims in the Pacific Northwest

WSHB Partner Janice Michaels Named to The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 List

One Bad Apple: Navigating through Sexual Battery and other Intentional Torts

Leading Construction Litigator Cynthia Tari Joins WSHB's Dallas Office

WSHB’s Philadelphia Partner Secures Summary Judgment in Catastrophic Premises Liability Matter

WSHB Welcomes New Partner Andrew Kessler

New Bill In New York Proposed for Signature by Governor Andrew Cuomo is Set To Make Employers "SWEAT"

Renowned Litigator Jason Williams Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Litigator Richard Young Joins WSHB's Nevada Office

Published Appellate Opinion Upholding Summary Judgment in Favor of Commercial Tenant Against $3.5M Subrogation Suit

17 WSHB Lawyers Honored as 2019's Rising Stars

Arizona Supreme Court Allows Court of Appeals Decision Expanding Defendants' Ability to Enforce Settlements to Stand

WSHB’s Jason Klein Breaks Down the Good, the Sad and the Funny Sides of Claims

Litigating Sexual Battery and Other Intentional Torts: Navigating the One Bad Apple in Medical Negligence

WSHB Partner Michelle Arbitrio to Moderate Panel on Insurance and Risk Management in the Age of Mass Shootings

WSHB Cannabis Attorney Finalist for "Lawyer of the Year"

Girl on Fire: The Price of Pursuing the Truth in the #MeToo World

Pragmatic Issues on Settlement Versus Trial for Legal Malpractice Cases

WSHB Partner Jade Tran Named to Lawyers of Color's "Nation's Best" List

WSHB Senior Associate Selected for 2020 Diversity Leadership & Mentoring Program

A Withering Assault

The Natural Progression of Natural Disasters

Nevada’s Governor Signs Chapter 40 Reform Bill

WA Condo Law Changes Hope to Curtail Frivolous Defect Lawsuits and Stimulate Production

WSHB Co-Founder Stephen Henning Steps Into the Spotlight at this Year's West Coast Casualty Seminar

Professional Liability Expert Weighs In On Protecting Your Practice From Opioid Doc Arrest Fallout

Penalties, Punitives, and Granny Cams: The Escalating Lure of Elder Abuse Litigation

Are Structured Settlements Still Relevant

Game Changing Trends Affecting Construction

He's Not My Guy: The Joint-Employer Doctrine

WSHB Case Update: DOL Proposes Increase to Minimum Salary Threshold

WSHB and DWF Announce Exclusive Association

Navigating the Minefields in New York Labor Law

For Want of a Cupcake? Bakery’s Refusal to Serve Same-Sex Couples is Found in Violation of Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act

August 27, 2015

On August 13, 2015, in a unanimous decision, the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed a May 2014 finding from the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that a bakery’s policy of turning away same-sex couples who requested wedding cakes violates Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (“CADA”). CADA prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, which is not a protected class under Title VII. Unlike Title VII, CADA applies to Colorado employers of any size.

In 2012, a same-sex couple requested that Masterpiece Cakeshop make a cake for their wedding reception. The bakery owner denied the couple service, citing his religious beliefs and the store’s policy to deny service for same-sex wedding cakes. The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (CCRD) alleging that the bakery violated Colorado state law prohibiting businesses from refusing service based on factors such as race, marital status or sexual orientation. The CCRD found that the bakery discriminated against the same-sex couple in violation of Colorado law. The bakery appealed the decision to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, who affirmed the CCRD’s finding that the refusal to serve a same-sex couple constituted discrimination based on sexual orientation in violation of Colorado law. The Colorado Court of Appeals agreed and held that “discrimination on the basis of one’s opposition to same-sex marriage is discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.” The bakery said it will likely appeal the ruling to the Colorado Supreme Court.

Regardless of religious liberties, refusing to provide services for same-sex marriages and couples is risky business in Colorado. Colorado employers should take time now to review their written and actual day-to-day policies to ensure their customers are not being subject to discriminatory practices under CADA. The importance of doing so cannot be overstated, with CADA, effective January 1, 2015, now allowing for possible compensatory and exemplary damage awards.


Privacy Policy      |      Site Map

© 2019 Wood Smith Henning & Berman LLP

Subscribe to our mailing list

* indicates required