“The Bible says, ‘In the beginning there was male and female,'” Phillips said. He offered to make any other baked goods for the men.

“At which point they both stormed out and left,” he said.

The couple filed a complaint with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which ruled in their favor, citing a state anti-discrimination law. Phillips took his case to the Colorado Court of Appeals, arguing that requiring him to provide a wedding cake for the couple violated his constitutional right to freedom of speech and free exercise of religion. The court held that the state anti-discrimination law was neutral and generally applicable and did not compel Masterpiece to “support or endorse any particular religious view.” It simply prohibited Phillips from discriminating against potential customers on account of their sexual orientation.

Phillips then took his case to the Supreme Court and the justices agreed to take it up after mulling it for several weeks.

In court papers, Kristen K. Waggoner, a lawyer from the conservative Alliance Defending Freedom who is representing Phillips, argued that the First Amendment guarantees him the right to decline to make wedding cakes that celebrate marriages that are in conflict with his religious beliefs. She said that Phillips is protected by two parts of the First Amendment: its protections of religious exercise and free speech. While she argued that the free exercise clause forbids the commission from targeting Phillips “and like-minded believers for punishment,” she reserved the bulk of her brief for the free speech clause, perhaps targeting potential swing vote Justice Anthony Kennedy, who has at times shown an expansive view of free speech.

Waggoner argued that a person viewing one of Phillips’ custom wedding cakes — his “artistic expression” — would “understand that it celebrates and expresses support for the couple’s marriage.” She said the Supreme Court’s compelled speech doctrine “forbids the commission from demanding that artists design custom expression that conveys ideas they deem objectionable.”

In the interview, Phillips said, “I feel I’m being compelled to create artwork for an event — an inherently religious event — that goes against my faith, and I’m being compelled to do so under penalty of jail time and fines.”

Not surprisingly, Mullins and Craig see the case through an entirely different lens: discrimination.

“This case is about more than us, and it’s not about cakes,” Mullins said in an interview. “It’s about the right of gay people to receive equal service.”

“This isn’t about artistic expression,” said Craig. “I don’t feel like we asked for a piece of art, or for him to make a statement, we simply asked him for a cake, and he denied that to us simply because of who we are.”

“In essence, the bakery seeks a constitutional right to hang a sign in its shop window proclaiming, ‘Wedding Cakes for Heterosexuals Only,'” the ACLU’s David D. Cole wrote in court briefs.

Cole said that whether a cake is an artistic expression is not at issue. “The question, rather, is whether the Constitution grants businesses open to the public the right to violate laws against discrimination in the commercial marketplace if the business happens to sell an artistic product.” The answer, Cole contends, is “no.”

Twenty other states and the District of Columbia likewise expressly prohibit places of public accommodation from discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures.

The Trump administration sides with Phillips in the case, arguing that it falls “within the small set of applications of content-neutral laws that merit heightened scrutiny” from the courts. “A custom wedding cake is not an ordinary baked good; its function is more communicative and artistic than utilitarian,” Solicitor General Noel Francisco argued. “Accordingly, the government may not enact content-based laws commanding a speaker to engage in protected expression: An artist cannot be forced to paint, a musician cannot be forced to play, and a poet cannot be forced to write.”

But the government lawyers did draw a line when it comes to race, arguing that laws targeting race-based discrimination may survive heightened First Amendment scrutiny in part because racial bias “is a familiar and recurring evil that poses unique historical, constitutional and institutional concerns.”