Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111diff2_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 3.0

2 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N
 
Syllabus
 

that Colorado law can protect gay persons in acquiring products and 
services  on  the  same  terms  and  conditions  as  are  offered  to  other 
members of the public, the law must be applied in a manner that is 
neutral toward religion.  To Phillips, his claim that using his artistic
skills  to  make  an  expressive  statement,  a  wedding  endorsement  in
his  own  voice  and  of  his  own  creation,  has  a  significant  First 
Amendment  speech  component  and  implicates  his  deep  and  sincere
religious  beliefs.    His  dilemma  was  understandable  in  2012,  which 
was  before  Colorado  recognized  the  validity  of  gay  marriages  per-
formed  in  the  State  and  before  this  Court  issued  United  States  v. 
Windsor,  570  U. S.  744,  or  Obergefell.  Given  the  State’s  position  at 
the  time,  there  is  some  force  to  Phillips’  argument  that  he  was  not
unreasonable  in  deeming  his  decision  lawful.    State  law  at  the  time 
also  afforded  storekeepers  some  latitude  to  decline  to  create  specific
messages  they  considered  offensive.    Indeed,  while  the  instant  en-
forcement proceedings were pending, the State Civil Rights Division
concluded in at least three cases that a baker acted lawfully in declin-
ing  to  create  cakes  with  decorations  that  demeaned  gay  persons  or
gay marriages.  Phillips too  was entitled to a neutral and respectful
consideration  of  his  claims  in  all  the  circumstances  of  the  case. 
Pp. 9–12.

(b) That consideration was compromised, however, by the Commis-
sion’s  treatment  of  Phillips’  case,  which  showed  elements  of  a  clear
and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs moti-
vating his objection.  As the record shows, some of the commissioners 
at  the  Commission’s  formal,  public  hearings  endorsed  the  view  that 
religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere 
or  commercial  domain,  disparaged  Phillips’  faith  as  despicable  and
characterized it as merely rhetorical, and compared his invocation of 
his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Hol-
ocaust.  No commissioners objected to the comments.  Nor were they 
mentioned  in  the  later  state-court  ruling  or  disavowed  in  the  briefs
filed here.  The comments thus cast doubt on the fairness and impar-
tiality of the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.   

Another indication of hostility is the different treatment of Phillips’ 
case  and  the  cases  of  other  bakers  with  objections  to  anti-gay  mes-
sages who prevailed before  the Commission.  The Commission ruled 
against  Phillips  in  part  on  the  theory  that  any  message  on  the  re-
quested wedding cake would be attributed to the customer, not to the 
baker.  Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the cases
involving  requests  for  cakes  depicting  anti-gay  marriage  symbolism.
The Division also considered that each bakery was willing to sell oth-
er products to the prospective customers, but the Commission found
Phillips’  willingness  to  do  the  same  irrelevant.    The  State  Court  of