Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/20pdf/19-926_5hdk.pdf
Page Number: 4

4 

DAVIS v. ERMOLD 

Statement of THOMAS, J. 

(2018)  (describing  owners  of  wedding  studio who  declined 
to participate in same-sex weddings for religious reasons as 
treating homosexuals like “ ‘social outcasts’ ” (quoting Mas-
terpiece  Cakeshop,  Ltd.  v.  Colorado  Civil  Rights  Comm’n, 
584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9))). 

* 

* 

* 
This  petition  implicates  important  questions  about  the
scope of our decision in Obergefell, but it does not cleanly
present them.  For that reason, I concur in the denial of cer-
tiorari.  Nevertheless,  this  petition  provides  a  stark  re-
minder  of  the  consequences  of  Obergefell.  By  choosing  to 
privilege a novel constitutional right over the religious lib-
erty interests explicitly protected in the First Amendment,
and by doing so undemocratically, the Court has created a 
problem that only it can fix.  Until then, Obergefell will con-
tinue to have “ruinous consequences for religious liberty.” 
576 U. S., at 734 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).