Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111diff2_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 28.0

2 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N
 
GORSUCH, J., concurring
 

the same accommodation to Mr. Phillips when he refused 
a  customer’s  request  that  would  have  required  him  to 
violate his religious beliefs.  Ante, at 14–16.  As the Court 
also  explains,  the  only  reason  the  Commission  seemed  to 
supply  for  its  discrimination  was  that  it  found  Mr.  Phil-
lips’s  religious  beliefs  “offensive.”    Ibid.    That  kind  of 
judgmental dismissal of a sincerely held religious belief is, 
of course, antithetical to the First Amendment and cannot 
begin to satisfy strict scrutiny.  The Constitution protects
not just popular religious exercises from the condemnation 
of  civil  authorities. 
It  protects  them  all.    Because  the 
Court  documents  each  of  these  points  carefully  and  thor-
oughly, I am pleased to join its opinion in full. 

The only wrinkle is this.  In the face of so much evidence 
suggesting  hostility  toward  Mr.  Phillips’s  sincerely  held 
religious  beliefs,  two  of  our  colleagues  have  written  sepa-
rately  to  suggest  that  the  Commission  acted  neutrally 
toward  his  faith  when  it  treated  him  differently  from  the 
other  bakers—or  that  it  could  have  easily  done  so  con-
sistent  with  the  First  Amendment.    See  post,  at  4–5,  and 
n. 4  (GINSBURG,  J.,  dissenting);  ante,  at  2–3,  and  n. 
(KAGAN,  J.,  concurring).    But,  respectfully,  I  do  not  see
how we might rescue the Commission from its error. 

A full view of the facts helps point the way to the prob-
lem.  Start with William Jack’s case.  He approached three
bakers  and  asked  them  to  prepare  cakes  with  messages 
disapproving  same-sex  marriage  on  religious  grounds. 
App.  233,  243,  252.    All  three  bakers  refused  Mr.  Jack’s 
request,  stating  that  they  found  his  request  offensive  to
their secular convictions.  Id., at 231, 241, 250.  Mr. Jack 
responded  by  filing  complaints  with  the  Colorado  Civil 
Id.,  at  230,  240,  249.    He  pointed  to
Rights  Division. 
Colorado’s  Anti-Discrimination  Act,  which  prohibits  dis-
crimination  against  customers  in  public  accommodations 
because  of  religious  creed,  sexual  orientation,  or  certain
other  traits.  See  ibid.;  Colo.  Rev.  Stat.  §24–34–601(2)(a)