Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 1.0

(Slip Opinion) 

OCTOBER  TERM,  2017 

1 

Syllabus 

NOTE:  Where  it  is  feasible,  a  syllabus  (headnote)  will  be  released,  as  is
being  done  in  connection  with  this  case,  at  the  time  the  opinion  is  issued.
The  syllabus  constitutes  no  part  of  the  opinion  of  the  Court  but  has  been
prepared  by  the  Reporter  of  Decisions  for  the  convenience  of  the  reader. 
See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337. 

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 

Syllabus 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD., ET AL. v. 

COLORADO CIVIL RIGHTS COMMISSION ET AL. 

CERTIORARI TO THE COURT OF APPEALS OF COLORADO 

No. 16–111.  Argued December 5, 2017—Decided June 4, 2018 

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a Colorado bakery owned and operated
by Jack Phillips, an expert  baker and devout Christian.  In 2012 he 
told a same-sex couple that he would not create a cake for their wed-
ding celebration because of his religious opposition to same-sex mar-
riages—marriages that Colorado did not then recognize—but that he
would sell them other baked goods, e.g., birthday cakes.  The couple 
filed  a  charge  with  the  Colorado  Civil  Rights  Commission  (Commis-
sion)  pursuant  to  the  Colorado  Anti-Discrimination  Act  (CADA),
which prohibits, as relevant here, discrimination based on sexual ori-
entation in a “place of business engaged in any sales to the public and
any place offering services . . . to the public.”  Under CADA’s admin-
istrative review system, the Colorado Civil Rights Division first found 
probable  cause  for  a  violation  and  referred  the  case  to  the  Commis-
sion.  The Commission then referred the case for a formal hearing be-
fore  a  state  Administrative  Law  Judge  (ALJ),  who  ruled  in  the  cou-
ple’s favor.  In so doing, the ALJ rejected Phillips’ First Amendment
claims:  that  requiring  him  to  create  a  cake  for  a  same-sex  wedding 
would  violate  his  right  to  free  speech  by  compelling  him  to  exercise 
his artistic talents to express a message with which he disagreed and 
would  violate  his  right  to  the  free  exercise  of  religion.    Both  the 
Commission and the Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed. 

Held: The Commission’s actions in this case violated the Free Exercise 

Clause.  Pp. 9–18.

(a) The laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must,
protect  gay  persons  and  gay  couples  in  the  exercise  of  their  civil 
rights, but religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are 
protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. 
See Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U. S. ___, ___.  While it is unexceptional