Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/17pdf/16-111_j4el.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  584 U. S. ____ (2018) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

same-sex couples on this basis.  Id., at 72.  The investiga-
tor  also  recounted  that,  according  to  affidavits  submitted
by  Craig  and  Mullins,  Phillips’  shop  had  refused  to  sell 
cupcakes to a lesbian couple for their commitment celebra-
tion  because  the  shop  “had  a  policy  of  not  selling  baked 
goods  to  same-sex  couples  for  this  type  of  event.”    Id.,  at 
73.  Based  on  these  findings,  the  Division  found  probable 
cause that Phillips violated CADA and referred the case to 
the Civil Rights Commission.  Id., at 69. 

The  Commission  found  it  proper  to  conduct  a  formal 
hearing,  and  it  sent  the  case  to  a State  ALJ.  Finding  no
dispute  as  to  material  facts,  the  ALJ  entertained  cross-
motions  for  summary  judgment  and  ruled  in  the  couple’s
favor.  The  ALJ  first  rejected  Phillips’  argument  that
declining to make or create a wedding cake for Craig and
Mullins  did  not  violate  Colorado  law.    It  was  undisputed 
that  the  shop  is  subject  to  state  public  accommodations 
laws.  And  the  ALJ  determined  that  Phillips’  actions
constituted  prohibited  discrimination  on  the  basis  of  sex- 
ual orientation, not simply opposition to same-sex marriage
as Phillips contended.  App. to Pet. for Cert. 68a–72a.

Phillips raised two constitutional claims before the ALJ.
He first asserted that applying CADA in a way that would
require him to create a cake for a same-sex wedding would 
violate  his  First  Amendment  right  to  free  speech  by  com-
pelling  him  to  exercise  his  artistic  talents  to  express  a 
message  with  which  he  disagreed.    The  ALJ  rejected  the 
contention  that  preparing  a  wedding  cake  is  a  form  of 
protected speech and did not agree that creating Craig and 
Mullins’ cake would force Phillips to adhere to “an ideolog-
ical  point  of  view.”  Id.,  at  75a.  Applying  CADA  to  the
facts  at  hand,  in  the  ALJ’s  view,  did  not  interfere  with 
Phillips’ freedom of speech.

Phillips  also  contended  that  requiring  him  to  create
cakes for same-sex weddings would violate his right to the 
free  exercise  of  religion,  also  protected  by  the  First