Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111diff2_e1pf.pdf
Page Number: 48.0

10 

MASTERPIECE CAKESHOP, LTD. v. COLORADO 

CIVIL RIGHTS COMM’N
 
Opinion of THOMAS, J. 

ernment  a  freer  hand  in  compelling  speech.  See  Pacific 
Gas & Elec., supra, at 8, 16 (collecting cases); Virginia Bd. 
of  Pharmacy  v.  Virginia  Citizens  Consumer  Council,  Inc., 
425  U. S.  748,  761  (1976)  (deeming  it  “beyond  serious 
dispute”  that  “[s]peech  . . .  is  protected  even  though  it  is 
carried  in  a  form  that  is  ‘sold’  for  profit”).    Further,  even 
assuming that most for-profit companies prioritize maxim­
izing  profits  over  communicating  a  message,  that  is  not
true  for  Masterpiece  Cakeshop.    Phillips  routinely  sacri­
fices profits to ensure that Masterpiece operates in a way
that  represents  his  Christian  faith.    He  is  not  open  on 
Sundays,  he  pays  his  employees  a  higher-than-average 
wage, and he loans them money in times of need.  Phillips
also  refuses  to  bake  cakes  containing  alcohol,  cakes  with 
racist or homophobic messages, cakes criticizing God, and 
cakes  celebrating  Halloween—even  though  Halloween  is
one  of  the  most  lucrative  seasons  for  bakeries.  These 
efforts  to  exercise  control  over  the  messages  that  Master­
piece sends are still more evidence that Phillips’ conduct is
expressive.  See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 
418 U. S. 241, 256–258 (1974); Walker v. Texas Div., Sons 
of  Confederate  Veterans,  Inc.,  576  U. S.  ___,  ___  (2015) 
(slip op., at 15). 

2 

The Colorado Court of Appeals also erred by suggesting 
that Phillips could simply post a disclaimer, disassociating 
Masterpiece  from  any  support  for  same-sex  marriage. 
Again,  this  argument  would  justify  any  law  compelling 
speech.  And  again,  this  Court  has  rejected  it.    We  have 
described  similar  arguments  as  “beg[ging]  the  core  ques­
tion.”  Tornillo,  supra,  at  256.  Because  the  government 
cannot  compel  speech,  it  also  cannot  “require  speakers  to
affirm  in  one  breath  that  which  they  deny  in  the  next.” 
Pacific  Gas  &  Elec.,  475  U. S.,  at  16;  see  also  id.,  at  15, 
n. 11  (citing  PruneYard,  447  U. S.,  at  99  (Powell,  J.,  con­