Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 35

10 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO 
CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N
 
GORSUCH, J., concurring
 

duce them.  Instead, the Commission accepted the bakers’ 
view that the specific cakes Mr. Jack requested conveyed a
message offensive to their convictions and allowed them to
refuse  service.  Having  done  that  there,  it  must  do  the 
same here. 

Any  other  conclusion  would  invite  civil  authorities  to
gerrymander  their  inquiries  based  on  the  parties  they 
prefer.  Why  calibrate  the  level  of  generality  in  Mr.  Phil-
lips’s  case  at  “wedding  cakes”  exactly—and  not  at,  say,
“cakes”  more  generally  or  “cakes  that  convey  a  message
regarding  same-sex  marriage”  more  specifically? 
  If 
“cakes” were the relevant level of generality, the Commis-
sion  would  have  to  order  the  bakers  to  make  Mr.  Jack’s 
requested cakes just as it ordered Mr. Phillips to make the 
requested  cake  in  his  case.  Conversely,  if  “cakes  that
convey a message regarding same-sex marriage” were the
relevant level of generality, the Commission would have to
respect  Mr.  Phillips’s  refusal  to  make  the  requested  cake
just  as  it  respected  the  bakers’  refusal  to  make  the  cakes 
Mr.  Jack  requested. 
In  short,  when  the  same  level  of 
generality  is  applied  to  both  cases,  it  is  no  surprise  that
the bakers have to be treated the same.  Only by adjusting
the dials just right—fine-tuning the level of generality up 
or  down  for  each  case  based  solely  on  the  identity  of  the 
parties  and  the  substance  of  their  views—can  you  engi-
neer  the  Commission’s  outcome,  handing  a  win  to  Mr.
Jack’s  bakers  but  delivering  a  loss  to  Mr.  Phillips.    Such 
results-driven  reasoning  is  improper.    Neither  the  Com-
mission  nor  this  Court  may  apply  a  more  specific  level  of
generality  in  Mr.  Jack’s  case  (a  cake  that  conveys  a  mes-
sage regarding same-sex marriage) while applying a higher
level  of  generality  in  Mr.  Phillips’s  case  (a  cake  that
conveys  no  message  regarding  same-sex  marriage).    Of 
course,  under  Smith  a  vendor  cannot  escape  a  public 
accommodations law just because his religion frowns on it. 
But for any law to comply with the First Amendment and