When Does Balancing Justify Religious Exemptions? The Case of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission

Abstract This paper analyses the moral structure of claims to religious exemptions that appeal to the logic of balancing, or the idea that one’s higher-order interests are unequally burdened relative to other parties’ higher-order interests and this burden requires easing through exemptions. In particular, I discuss whether the logic of balancing can justify a religious exemption in an idealised version of Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission . This case before the Supreme Court of the United States involved religious bakery owners claiming for a religious exemption from anti-discrimination law in order to refuse service to a same-sex couple of customers seeking a wedding cake for their wedding. I consider two kinds of possible interest that could ground balancing in this case: integrity-preservation and equal-opportunity. I conclude that neither can.