Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 18.0

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

15 

Opinion of the Court 

words of the Division, the requested cake included “word-
ing  and  images  [the  baker]  deemed  derogatory,”  Jack  v. 
Gateaux,  Ltd.,  Charge  No.  P20140071X,  at  4;  featured 
“language and images [the baker] deemed hateful,” Jack v. 
Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X, at 4;  or 
displayed a message the baker “deemed as discriminatory, 
Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X, at 4. 

The  treatment  of  the  conscience-based  objections  at 
issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission’s 
treatment  of  Phillips’  objection.    The  Commission  ruled 
against  Phillips  in  part  on  the  theory  that  any  message
the  requested  wedding  cake  would  carry  would  be  at-
tributed  to  the  customer,  not  to  the  baker.    Yet  the  Divi-
sion  did  not  address  this  point  in  any  of  the  other  cases
with  respect  to  the  cakes  depicting  anti-gay  marriage
symbolism.    Additionally,  the  Division  found  no  violation 
of  CADA  in  the  other  cases  in  part  because  each  bakery
was  willing  to  sell  other  products,  including  those  depict-
ing  Christian  themes,  to  the  prospective  customers.    But 
the  Commission  dismissed  Phillips’  willingness  to  sell
“birthday  cakes,  shower  cakes,  [and]  cookies  and  brown-
ies,” App. 152, to gay and lesbian customers as irrelevant.
The  treatment  of  the  other  cases  and  Phillips’  case  could 
reasonably  be  interpreted  as  being  inconsistent  as  to  the
question  of  whether  speech  is  involved,  quite  apart  from 
whether the cases should ultimately be distinguished.  In 
short, the Commission’s consideration of Phillips’ religious
objection  did  not  accord  with  its  treatment  of  these  other 
objections.

Before the Colorado Court of Appeals, Phillips protested 
that  this  disparity  in  treatment  reflected  hostility  on  the 
part of the Commission toward his beliefs.  He argued that 
the Commission had treated the other bakers’ conscience-
based  objections  as  legitimate,  but  treated  his  as  illegiti-
mate—thus  sitting  in  judgment  of  his  religious  beliefs 
themselves.  The Court of Appeals addressed the disparity