9–18. 16–111. Justice Thomas, with whom Justice Gorsuch joins, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise Clause. “If there is a bedrock principle underlying the The reason and motive for the baker’s refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. Of course, the line Mr. Thomas drew wasn’t the same many others would draw and it wasn’t even the same line many other members of the same faith would draw. It also ordered additional remedial measures, including “comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section” of CADA “and changes to any and all company policies to comply with . Ginsburg, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which Sotomayor, J., joined. First Amendment gives individuals the right to disagree about the correctness of Obergefell and the morality of same-sex marriage. 547 U. S. 47, 64–65 (2006) (FAIR); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. See ante, at 2–3, and n. (Kagan, J., concurring). based on the government’s own assessment of offensiveness.” Ante, at 16. biases” against the protected groups, that purpose is “decidedly fatal” to the law’s constitutionality, “for it amounts to nothing less than a proposal to limit speech in the service of orthodox expression.” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 578–579; see also United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., But we know this with certainty: when the government fails to act neutrally toward the free exercise of religion, it tends to run into trouble. Justia makes no guarantees or warranties that the annotations are accurate or reflect the current state of law, and no annotation is intended to be, nor should it be construed as, legal advice. filed. (Distributed), Brief amici curiae of Freedom of Speech Scholars filed. certiorari to the court of appeals of colorado, No. Id., at 69. 200 U. S. 321, 337. Brief amici curiae of Christian Legal Society, et al. §24–34–601(2)(a) (2017). The Commission cannot slide up and down the mens rea scale, picking a mental state standard to suit its tastes depending on its sympathies. Fourth, after the Commission’s ruling, the Colorado Court of Appeals considered the case de novo. . (Distributed), Brief amici curiae of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, et al. 11–12. The Commission found it proper to conduct a formal hearing, and it sent the case to a State ALJ. %PDF-1.6 %���� Obergefell itself emphasized that the traditional understanding of marriage “long has been held—and continues to be held—in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world.” Id., at ___ (majority opinion) (slip op., at 4).
And the Court itself recognizes the principle that would properly account for a difference in result between those cases. Only one way forward now remains. Motion for leave to intervene filed by John Gunter, Jr., et al. Brief amici curiae of 33 Family Policy Organizations filed. His dilemma was understandable in 2012, which was before Colorado recognized the validity of gay marriages performed in the State and before this Court issued United States v. Windsor, (Distributed), Brief amici curiae of Ilan H. Meyer, PhD, et al. to Pet. See Hurley, supra, at 574–575; Dale, 530 U. S., at 644; Snyder v. Phelps, When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding—not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings—and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. NOTICE: This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports. Citing this Court’s precedent in Employment Div., Dept. The investigator found that “on multiple occasions,” Phillips “turned away potential customers on the basis of their sexual orientation, stating that he could not create a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony or reception” because his religious beliefs prohibited it and because the potential customers “were doing something illegal” at that time. A few moments later, the commissioner restated the same position: “[I]f a businessman wants to do business in the state and he’s got an issue with the—the law’s impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise.” Id., at 30. Perhaps the Commission could have chosen either course as an initial matter. filed. (c) For these reasons, the Commission’s treatment of Phillips’ case violated the State’s duty under the The court described his conduct as a refusal to “design and create a cake to celebrate [a] same-sex wedding.” Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 370 P.3d 272, 276 (2015); see also id., at 286 (“designing and selling a wedding cake”); id., at 283 (“refusing to create a wedding cake”). First Amendment, as applied to the States through the The Colorado Court of Appeals also noted that Masterpiece is a “for-profit bakery” that “charges its customers.” 370 P. 3d, at 287. It didn’t declare, for example, that because the cakes Mr. Jack requested were just cakes about weddings generally, and all such cakes were the same, the bakers had to produce them. . Argued December 5, 2017—Decided June 4, 2018 . Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law. 2015); App.

Instead, as the Court explains, it appears the Commission wished to condemn Mr. Phillips for expressing just the kind of “irrational” or “offensive . The problem is, the Commission didn’t play with the level of generality in Mr. Jack’s case in this way. See. “[A] speech burden based on audience reactions is simply government hostility . And the ALJ determined that Phillips’ actions constituted prohibited discrimination on the basis of sex- ual orientation, not simply opposition to same-sex marriage as Phillips contended. See post, at 4–5, and n. 4 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Brief amici curiae of Restoring Religious Freedom Project filed. Phillips was entitled to a neutral and respectful consideration of his claims but the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, acting inconsistently with its consideration of similar cases, showed impermissible hostility toward his sincere religious beliefs. As the Court also explains, the only reason the Commission seemed to supply for its discrimination was that it found Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs “offensive.” Ibid.