Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new2_22p3.pdf
Page Number: 14

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

11 

Opinion of the Court 

his  own  voice  and  of  his  own  creation.    As  Phillips  would 
see  the  case,  this  contention  has  a  significant  First 
Amendment  speech  component  and  implicates  his  deep
and  sincere  religious  beliefs.  In  this  context  the  baker 
likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers’ 
rights  to  goods  and  services  became  a  demand  for  him  to
exercise the right of his own personal expression for their 
message,  a  message  he  could  not  express  in  a  way  con-
sistent with his religious beliefs.

Phillips’  dilemma  was  particularly  understandable 
given  the  background  of  legal  principles  and  administra-
tion of the law in Colorado at that time.  His decision and 
his actions leading to the refusal of service all occurred in
the  year  2012.    At  that  point,  Colorado  did  not  recognize 
the  validity  of  gay  marriages  performed  in  its  own  State.
See Colo. Const., Art. II, §31 (2012); 370 P. 3d, at 277.  At 
the  time  of  the  events  in  question,  this  Court  had  not 
issued its decisions either in United States v. Windsor, 570 
U. S.  744  (2013),  or  Obergefell.  Since  the  State  itself  did 
not  allow  those  marriages  to  be  performed  in  Colorado, 
there is some force to the argument that the baker was not 
unreasonable  in  deeming  it  lawful  to  decline  to  take  an 
action  that  he  understood  to  be  an  expression  of  support 
for their validity when that expression was contrary to his
sincerely  held  religious  beliefs,  at  least  insofar  as  his 
refusal  was  limited  to  refusing  to  create  and  express  a
message  in  support  of  gay  marriage,  even  one  planned  to
take place in another State.

At  the  time,  state  law  also  afforded  storekeepers  some
latitude  to  decline  to  create  specific  messages  the  store-
keeper  considered  offensive.    Indeed,  while  enforcement 
proceedings  against  Phillips  were  ongoing,  the  Colorado
Civil  Rights  Division  itself  endorsed  this  proposition  in
cases involving other bakers’ creation of cakes, concluding 
on  at  least  three  occasions  that  a  baker  acted  lawfully  in
declining  to  create  cakes  with  decorations  that  demeaned