Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new2_22p3.pdf
Page Number: 22

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

1 

KAGAN, J., concurring 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–111 
_________________ 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 

COLORADO
 

[June 4, 2018]

 JUSTICE  KAGAN,  with  whom  JUSTICE  BREYER  joins,

concurring. 

“[I]t  is  a  general  rule  that  [religious  and  philosophical] 
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.”  Ante, at 
9.  But  in  upholding  that  principle,  state  actors  cannot
show  hostility  to  religious  views;  rather,  they  must  give
those  views  “neutral  and  respectful  consideration.”    Ante, 
at  12.    I  join  the  Court’s  opinion  in  full  because  I  believe
the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not satisfy that 
obligation.    I  write  separately  to  elaborate  on  one  of  the 
bases for the Court’s holding.

The  Court  partly  relies  on  the  “disparate  consideration 
of  Phillips’  case  compared  to  the  cases  of  [three]  other 
bakers”  who  “objected  to  a  requested  cake  on  the  basis  of
conscience.”  Ante, at 14, 18.  In the latter cases, a customer 
named  William  Jack  sought  “cakes  with  images  that 
conveyed  disapproval  of  same-sex  marriage,  along  with 
religious text”; the bakers whom he approached refused to
make  them.  Ante,  at  15;  see  post,  at  3  (GINSBURG,  J., 
dissenting)  (further  describing  the  requested  cakes).
Those  bakers  prevailed  before  the  Colorado  Civil  Rights
Division and Commission, while Phillips—who objected for