The Intersection of Anti-Discrimination Law and Freedoms of Expression and Religion: A Legal Analysis of the U.S. Masterpiece Cakeshop Case and Its Potential Applicability

In modern pluralistic societies, the conflict between the equality rights of LGBTQ+ individuals and personal freedom of religion and expression has emerged as a significant constitutional challenge. This study provides an in-depth analysis of the patterns of conflict regarding fundamental rights and the process of judicial resolution, focusing on the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In that ruling, while the Court ruled in favor of the baker, it left a legal vacuum by issuing a “narrow ruling” that focused on procedural defects—specifically, the “religious hostility” shown by the lower adjudicatory body—rather than establishing substantive legal rights. This gap served as a catalyst for the 2023 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis decision, where the “compelled speech” doctrine was further materialized and extended into the realm of commercial creative services. From a comparative legal perspective, the U.K. case of Lee v. Ashers Baking Co. Ltd. provided an analytical framework for protecting freedom of expression by distinguishing the target of discrimination between “identity” (the person) and “message” (the viewpoint). However, this binary logic faces practical limitations as the two are often inextricably linked in real-world scenarios. The analysis of these international precedents offers crucial implications for the acute social conflicts in Korea surrounding the enactment of the Comprehensive Anti-Discrimination Act and the amendment of the Information and Communications Network Act. The Korean judiciary should move beyond simple binary opposition and aim for a “norm-harmonizing interpretation” that meticulously weighs factors such as the nature of the refusal, the availability of alternative services, and the degree of expressive proximity based on the constitutional principle of proportionality. Through this analysis, this paper seeks a rational balance where the contemporary value of minority protection and the traditional right to individual spiritual freedom can coexist.