Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111diff2_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 39.0

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

1 

Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

_________________ 

No. 16–111 
_________________ 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL., PETITIONERS 
v. COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION, ET AL. 

ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF 

COLORADO
 

[June 4, 2018]

 JUSTICE  THOMAS,  with  whom  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  joins,

concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. 

I  agree  that  the  Colorado  Civil  Rights  Commission 

(Commission)  violated  Jack  Phillips’  right  to  freely  exer­
cise  his  religion.  As  JUSTICE  GORSUCH  explains,  the
Commission treated Phillips’ case differently from a simi­
lar case involving three other bakers, for reasons that can
only  be  explained  by  hostility  toward  Phillips’  religion. 
See  ante,  at  2–7  (concurring  opinion).    The  Court  agrees
that  the  Commission  treated  Phillips  differently,  and  it 
points  out  that  some  of  the  Commissioners  made  com­
ments  disparaging  Phillips’  religion.    See  ante,  at  12–16. 
Although  the  Commissioners’  comments  are  certainly
disturbing,  the  discriminatory  application  of  Colorado’s
public-accommodations law is enough on its own to violate
Phillips’ rights.  To the extent the Court agrees, I join its
opinion.

While Phillips rightly prevails on his free-exercise claim,
I  write  separately  to  address  his  free-speech  claim.    The 
Court  does  not  address  this  claim  because  it  has  some 
uncertainties about the record.  See ante, at 2.  Specifically,
the  parties  dispute  whether  Phillips  refused  to  create  a 
custom  wedding  cake  for  the  individual  respondents,  or 
whether he refused to sell them any wedding cake (includ­
ing  a  premade  one).  But  the  Colorado  Court  of  Appeals