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

14 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO 
CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N 
Opinion of the Court 

cal—something  insubstantial  and  even  insincere.    The 
commissioner  even  went  so  far  as  to  compare  Phillips’ 
invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses 
of  slavery  and  the  Holocaust.    This  sentiment  is  inappro-
priate for a Commission charged with the solemn respon-
sibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado’s anti-
discrimination law—a law that protects against discrimina- 
tion on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation. 
  The  record  shows  no  objection  to  these  comments  from 
other  commissioners.    And  the  later  state-court  ruling 
reviewing  the  Commission’s  decision  did  not  mention 
those  comments,  much  less  express  concern  with  their 
content.    Nor  were  the  comments  by  the  commissioners 
disavowed  in  the  briefs  filed  in  this  Court.    For  these 
reasons, the Court cannot avoid the conclusion that these 
statements  cast  doubt  on  the  fairness  and  impartiality  of 
the Commission’s adjudication of Phillips’ case.  Members 
of  the  Court  have  disagreed  on  the  question  whether 
statements  made  by  lawmakers  may  properly  be  taken 
into  account  in  determining  whether  a  law  intentionally 
discriminates  on  the  basis  of  religion.    See  Church  of 
Lukumi  Babalu  Aye,  Inc.  v.  Hialeah,  508  U. S.  520,  540–
542  (1993);  id.,  at  558  (Scalia,  J.,  concurring  in  part  and 
concurring  in  judgment).    In  this  case,  however,  the  re-
marks were made in a very different context—by an adju-
dicatory body deciding a particular case. 
  Another indication of hostility is the difference in treat-
ment between Phillips’ case and the cases of other bakers 
who objected to a requested cake on the basis of conscience 
and prevailed before the Commission. 
  As  noted  above,  on  at  least  three  other  occasions  the 
Civil  Rights  Division  considered  the  refusal  of  bakers  to 
create  cakes  with  images  that  conveyed  disapproval  of 
same-sex marriage,  along  with  religious  text.   Each  time, 
the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refus-
ing service.  It made these determinations because, in the