Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_new2_22p3.pdf
Page Number: 51

14 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N
 
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

express  a  different  view.  Id.,  at  ___  (ROBERTS,  C. J.,  dis­
senting) (slip op., at 29).  This Court is not an authority on
matters  of  conscience,  and  its  decisions  can  (and  often
should) be criticized.  The First Amendment gives individ­
uals the right to disagree about the correctness of Oberge-
fell  and  the  morality  of  same-sex  marriage.  Obergefell 
itself  emphasized  that  the  traditional  understanding  of 
marriage “long has been held—and continues to be held—
in  good  faith  by  reasonable  and  sincere  people  here  and 
throughout the world.”  Id., at ___ (majority opinion) (slip 
op., at 4).  If Phillips’ continued adherence to that under­
standing makes him a minority after Obergefell, that is all 
the more reason to insist that his speech be protected.  See 
Dale, supra, at 660 (“[T]he fact that [the social acceptance
of  homosexuality]  may  be  embraced  and  advocated  by
increasing  numbers  of  people  is  all  the  more  reason  to
protect  the  First  Amendment  rights  of  those  who  wish  to 
voice a different view”). 

* 

* 

* 

In  Obergefell,  I  warned  that  the  Court’s  decision  would 
“inevitabl[y]  . . .  come  into  conflict”  with  religious  liberty,
“as individuals . . . are confronted with demands to partic­
ipate  in  and  endorse  civil  marriages  between  same-sex
couples.”  576 U. S., at ___ (dissenting opinion) (slip op., at 
15).  This  case  proves  that  the  conflict  has  already 
emerged.  Because the Court’s decision vindicates Phillips’ 
right  to  free  exercise,  it  seems  that  religious  liberty  has 
lived  to  fight  another  day.    But,  in  future  cases,  the  free­
dom  of  speech  could  be  essential  to  preventing  Obergefell
from  being  used  to  “stamp  out  every  vestige  of  dissent” 
and  “vilify  Americans  who  are  unwilling  to  assent  to  the 
new orthodoxy.”  Id., at ___ (ALITO, J., dissenting) (slip op., 
at 6).  If that freedom is to maintain its vitality, reasoning
like the Colorado Court of Appeals’ must be rejected.