Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-926_5hdk.pdf
Page Number: 3

Cite as:  592 U. S. ____ (20__) 

3 

Statement of THOMAS, J. 

forces that choice upon society through its creation of atex-
tual constitutional rights and its ungenerous interpretation 
of the Free Exercise Clause, leaving those with religious ob-
jections in the lurch.

Moreover, Obergefell enables courts and governments to
brand religious adherents who believe that marriage is be-
tween one man and one woman as bigots, making their re-
ligious  liberty  concerns  that  much  easier  to  dismiss.  For 
example,  relying  on  Obergefell,  one  member  of  the  Sixth 
Circuit panel in this case described Davis’ sincerely held re-
ligious beliefs as “anti-homosexual animus.”  936 F. 3d 429, 
438 (2019) (Bush, J., concurring in part and concurring in
judgment).  In other words, Obergefell was read to suggest 
that being a public official with traditional Christian values
was legally tantamount to invidious discrimination toward 
homosexuals.  This assessment flows directly from Oberge-
fell’s  language,  which  characterized  such  views  as  “dis-
parag[ing]”  homosexuals  and  “diminish[ing]  their  person-
hood” through “[d]ignitary wounds.”  576 U. S., at 672, 678. 
Since Obergefell, parties have continually attempted to la-
bel people of good will as bigots merely for refusing to alter 
their religious beliefs in the wake of prevailing orthodoxy. 
See  Campaign  for  Southern  Equality  v.  Bryant,  197 
F. Supp. 3d 905, 910 (SD Miss. 2016) (recognizing the plain-
tiffs’  argument  equating  an  accommodation  allowing  reli-
gious objectors to recuse themselves from signing same-sex 
licenses with impermissible discrimination); Brush & Nib 
Studio, LC v. Phoenix, 244 Ariz. 59, 66, 418 P. 3d 426, 434 

—————— 
scribes)  conduct  that  his  religion  proscribes  (or  prescribes).”  Employ-
ment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 879 
(1990) (internal quotation marks omitted).  As a result of Smith, accom-
modations for those with sincerely held religious beliefs have generally 
been viewed as the domain of positive state and federal law.  See, e.g., 
Klein v. Oregon Bureau of Labor & Industries, 289 Ore. App. 507, 543– 
546, 410 P. 3d 1051, 1074–1076 (2017) (rejecting a Free Exercise claim 
under Smith).