Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-123_g3bi.pdf
Page Number: 107.0

8 

FULTON v. PHILADELPHIA 

GORSUCH, J., concurring in judgment 

guarantees that this litigation is only getting started.  As 
the  final  arbiter  of  state  law,  the  Pennsylvania  Supreme 
Court can effectively overrule the majority’s reading of the
Commonwealth’s public accommodations law.  The City can
revise its FPO to make even plainer still that its law does 
encompass foster services.  Or with a flick of a pen, munic-
ipal  lawyers  may  rewrite  the  City’s  contract  to  close  the 
§3.21 loophole.

Once any of that happens, CSS will find itself back where
it started.  The City has made clear that it will never toler-
ate CSS carrying out its foster-care mission in accordance 
with  its  sincerely  held  religious  beliefs.  To  the  City,  it
makes no difference that CSS has not denied service to  a 
single same-sex couple; that dozens of other foster agencies 
stand willing to serve same-sex couples; or that CSS is com-
mitted  to  help  any  inquiring  same-sex  couples  find  those
other agencies.  The City has expressed its determination
to put CSS to a choice:  Give up your sincerely held religious 
beliefs  or  give  up  serving  foster  children  and  families.    If 
CSS is unwilling to provide foster-care services to same-sex
couples,  the  City  prefers  that  CSS  provide  no  foster-care
services at all.  This litigation thus promises to slog on for 
years to come, consuming time and resources in court that
could be better spent serving children.  And throughout it
all, the opacity of the majority’s professed endorsement of 
CSS’s arguments ensures the parties will be forced to de-
vote  resources  to  the  unenviable  task  of  debating  what  it 
even means. 

Nor  will  CSS  bear  the  costs  of  the  Court’s  indecision 
alone.  Individuals and groups across the country will pay 
the price—in dollars, in time, and in continued uncertainty 
about their religious liberties.  Consider Jack Phillips, the
baker whose religious beliefs prevented him from creating 
custom cakes to celebrate same-sex weddings.  See Master-
piece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 
U. S. ___ (2018).  After being forced to litigate all the way to