Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 97

Cite as:  593 U. S. ____ (2021) 

75 

ALITO, J., concurring in judgment
ALITO, J., concurring in judgment 

abridgment of . . . constitutional freedoms”). 

The same fundamental principle applies to religious prac-
tices that give offense.  The preservation of religious free-
dom depends on that principle.  Many core religious beliefs
are  perceived  as  hateful  by  members  of  other  religions  or
nonbelievers.  Proclaiming that there is only one God is of-
fensive to polytheists, and saying that there are many gods
is anathema to Jews, Christians, and Muslims.  Declaring
that Jesus was the Son of God is offensive to Judaism and 
Islam, and stating that Jesus was not the Son of God is in-
sulting  to  Christian  belief.    Expressing  a  belief  in  God  is
nonsense  to  atheists,  but  denying  the  existence  of  God  or 
proclaiming that religion has been a plague is infuriating to
those for whom religion is all-important. 

Suppressing  speech—or  religious  practice—simply  be-
cause it expresses an idea that some find hurtful is a zero-
sum game.  While CSS’s ideas about marriage are likely to
be  objectionable  to  same-sex  couples,  lumping  those  who 
hold traditional beliefs about marriage together with racial
bigots is insulting to those who retain such beliefs.  In Ober-
gefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. 644 (2015), the majority made a 
commitment.  It refused to equate traditional beliefs about 
marriage,  which  it  termed  “decent  and  honorable,”  id.,  at 
672,  with  racism,  which  is  neither.  And  it  promised  that
“religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may 
continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, 
by  divine  precepts,  same-sex  marriage  should  not  be  con-
doned.”  Id., at 679.  An open society can keep that promise 
while still respecting the “dignity,” “worth,” and fundamen-
tal equality of all members of the community.  Masterpiece 
Cakeshop, 584 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 9). 

B 

One final argument must be addressed.  Philadelphia and 
many  of  its  amici  contend  that  preservation  of  the  City’s
policy is not dependent on Smith.  They argue that the City