Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 11

8 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N
 
Opinion of the Court 

Amendment.  Citing this Court’s precedent in Employment 
Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 
872 (1990), the ALJ determined that CADA is a “valid and 
neutral  law  of  general  applicability”  and  therefore  that 
applying it to Phillips in this case did not violate the Free
Exercise  Clause.    Id.,  at  879;  App.  to  Pet.  for  Cert.  82a– 
83a.  The  ALJ  thus  ruled  against  Phillips  and  the
cakeshop and in favor of Craig and Mullins on both consti-
tutional claims. 

The Commission affirmed the ALJ’s decision in full.  Id., 
at  57a.  The  Commission  ordered  Phillips  to  “cease  and 
desist from discriminating against . . . same-sex couples by
refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any product [they]
would sell to heterosexual couples.”  Ibid.  It also ordered 
additional  remedial  measures,  including  “comprehensive 
staff  training  on  the  Public  Accommodations  section”  of 
CADA  “and  changes  to  any  and  all  company  policies  to 
comply with . . . this Order.”  Id., at 58a.  The Commission 
additionally  required  Phillips  to  prepare  “quarterly  com-
pliance reports” for a period of two years documenting “the 
number of patrons denied service” and why, along with “a
statement describing the remedial actions taken.”  Ibid. 

Phillips  appealed  to  the  Colorado  Court  of  Appeals,
which affirmed the Commission’s legal determinations and 
remedial order.  The court rejected the argument that the 
“Commission’s  order  unconstitutionally  compels”  Phillips 
and the shop “to convey a celebratory message about same 
sex  marriage.”  Craig  v.  Masterpiece  Cakeshop,  Inc.,  370 
P. 3d  272,  283  (2015).  The  court  also  rejected  the  argu-
ment that the Commission’s order violated the Free Exer-
cise  Clause.    Relying  on  this  Court’s  precedent  in  Smith, 
supra,  at  879,  the  court  stated  that  the  Free  Exercise 
Clause “does not relieve an individual of the obligation to
comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicabil-
ity”  on  the  ground  that  following  the  law  would  interfere
with  religious  practice  or  belief.    370  P. 3d,  at  289.    The