Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 82.0

60 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

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

(2020)  (slip  op.,  at  21–22),  we  found  that  other  religious
schools were entitled to similar exemptions from both the
ADA  and  the  Age  Discrimination  in  Employment  Act  of 
1967. 

There is also tension between Smith and our opinion in 
Masterpiece  Cakeshop,  Ltd.  v.  Colorado  Civil  Rights 
Comm’n,  584  U. S.  ___  (2018).    In  that  case,  we  observed 
that “[w]hen it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a 
member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral
and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the 
ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exer-
cise of religion.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 10).  The clear import 
of  this  observation  is  that  such  a  member  of  the  clergy
would be entitled to a religious exemption from a state law 
restricting the authority to perform a state-recognized mar-
riage to individuals who are willing to officiate both oppo-
site-sex and same-sex weddings.

Other inconsistencies exist.  Smith declared that “a pri-
vate right to ignore generally applicable laws” would be a
“constitutional anomaly,” 494 U. S., at 886, but this Court 
has often permitted exemptions from generally applicable
laws  in  First  Amendment  cases.    For  instance,  in  Boy 
Scouts  of  America  v.  Dale,  530  U.  S.  640,  656  (2000),  we 
granted  the  Boy  Scouts  an  exemption  from  an  otherwise
generally applicable state public accommodations law.  In 
Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group 
of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557, 573 (1995), parade sponsors’ 
speech  was  exempted  from  the  requirements  of  a  similar 
law. 

The granting of an exemption from a generally applicable
law  is  tantamount  to  a  holding  that  a  law  is  unconstitu-
tional as applied to a particular set of facts, see Barclay &
Rienzi,  Constitutional  Anomalies  or  As-Applied  Chal-
lenges? A Defense of Religious Exemptions, 59 Boston Col-
lege L. Rev. 1595, 1611 (2018), and cases holding generally