Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm'n

JUSTICE GORSUCH, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, concurring.¶verify

In Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith , this Court held that a neutral and generally applicable law will usually survive a constitutional free exercise challenge. 494 U. S. 872, 878–879 (1990). Smith remains controversial in many quarters. Compare McConnell, The Origins and Historical Understanding of Free Exercise of Religion, 103 Harv. L. Rev. 1409 (1990), with Hamburger, A Constitutional Right of Religious Exemption: An Historical Perspective, 60 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 915 (1992). But we know this with certainty: when the government fails to act neutrally toward the free exercise of religion, it tends to run into trouble. Then the government can prevail only if it satisfies strict scrutiny, showing that its restrictions on religion both serve a compelling interest and are narrowly tailored. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah , 508 U. S. 520, 546 (1993).¶verify

Today’s decision respects these principles. As the Court explains, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission failed to act neutrally toward Jack Phillips’s religious faith. Maybe most notably, the Commission allowed three other bakers to refuse a customer’s request that would have required them to violate their secular commitments. Yet it denied 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. Phillips’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 thoroughly, I am pleased to join its opinion in full.¶verify

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 separately 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 consistent 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.¶verify

A full view of the facts helps point the way to the problem. 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 Rights Division. Id. , at 230, 240, 249. He pointed to Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits discrimination 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)¶verify

(2017). Mr. Jack argued that the cakes he sought reflected his religious beliefs and that the bakers could not refuse to make them just because they happened to disagree with his beliefs. App. 231, 241, 250. But the Division declined to find a violation, reasoning that the bakers didn’t deny Mr. Jack service because of his religious faith but because the cakes he sought were offensive to their own moral convictions. Id. , at 237, 247, 255–256. As proof, the Division pointed to the fact that the bakers said they treated Mr. Jack as they would have anyone who requested a cake with similar messages, regardless of their religion. Id. , at 230–231, 240, 249 . The Division pointed, as well, to the fact that the bakers said they were happy to provide religious persons with other cakes expressing other ideas. Id. , at 237, 247, 257. Mr. Jack appealed to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, but the Commission summarily denied relief. App. to Pet. for Cert. 326a–331a.¶verify

Next, take the undisputed facts of Mr. Phillips’s case. Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins approached Mr. Phillips about creating a cake to celebrate their wedding. App. 168. Mr. Phillips explained that he could not prepare a cake celebrating a same-sex wedding consistent with his religious faith. Id., at 168–169 . But Mr. Phillips offered to make other baked goods for the couple, including cakes celebrating other occasions. Ibid. Later, Mr. Phillips testified without contradiction that he would have refused to create a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage for any customer, regardless of his or her sexual orientation. Id., at 166–167 (“I will not design and create wedding cakes for a same-sex wedding regardless of the sexual orientation of the customer”). And the record reveals that Mr. Phillips apparently refused just such a request from Mr. Craig’s mother. Id., at 38–40, 169. (Any suggestion that Mr. Phillips was willing to make a cake celebrating a same-sex marriage for a heterosexual customer or was not willing to sell other products to a homosexual customer, then, would simply mistake the undisputed factual record. See post, at 4, n. 2 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting); ante, at 2–3, and n. (KAGAN, J., concurring)). Nonetheless, the Commission held that Mr. Phillips’s conduct violated the Colorado public accommodations law. App. to Pet. for Cert. 56a–58a.¶verify

The facts show that the two cases share all legally salient features. In both cases, the effect on the customer was the same: bakers refused service to persons who bore a statutorily protected trait (religious faith or sexual orientation). But in both cases the bakers refused service intending only to honor a personal conviction. To be sure, the bakers knew their conduct promised the effect of leaving a customer in a protected class unserved. But there’s no indication the bakers actually intended to refuse service because of a customer’s protected characteristic. We know this because all of the bakers explained without contradiction that they would not sell the requested cakes to anyone, while they would sell other cakes to members of the protected class (as well as to anyone else). So, for example, the bakers in the first case would have refused to sell a cake denigrating same-sex marriage to an atheist customer, just as the baker in the second case would have refused to sell a cake celebrating same-sex marriage to a heterosexual customer. And the bakers in the first case were generally happy to sell to persons of faith, just as the baker in the second case was generally happy to sell to gay persons. In both cases, it was the kind of cake, not the kind of customer, that mattered to the bakers.¶verify

The distinction between intended and knowingly accepted effects is familiar in life and law. Often the purposeful pursuit of worthy commitments requires us to accept unwanted but entirely foreseeable side effects: so, for example, choosing to spend time with family means the foreseeable loss of time for charitable work, just as opting for more time in the office means knowingly forgoing time at home with loved ones. The law, too, sometimes distinguishes between intended and foreseeable effects. See, e.g., ALI, Model Penal Code §§1.13, 2.02(2)(a)(i) (1985); 1 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law §5.2(b), pp. 460463 (3d ed. 2018). Other times, of course, the law proceeds differently, either conflating intent and knowledge or presuming intent as a matter of law from a showing of knowledge. See, e.g., Restatement (Second) of Torts §8A (1965); Radio Officers v. NLRB , 347 U. S. 17, 45 (1954).¶verify

The problem here is that the Commission failed to act neutrally by applying a consistent legal rule. In Mr. Jack’s case, the Commission chose to distinguish carefully between intended and knowingly accepted effects. Even though the bakers knowingly denied service to someone in a protected class, the Commission found no violation because the bakers only intended to distance themselves from “the offensive nature of the requested message.” Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc. , 370 P. 3d 272, 282, n. 8 (Colo. App. 2015); App. 237, 247, 256; App. to Pet. for Cert. 326a–331a; see also Brief for Respondent Colorado Civil Rights Commission 52 (“Businesses are entitled to reject orders for any number of reasons, including because they deem a particular product requested by a customer to be ‘offensive''). Yet, in Mr. Phillips’s case, the Commission dismissed this very same argument as resting on a “distinction without a difference.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 69a. It concluded instead that an “intent to disfavor” a protected class of persons should be “readily . . . presumed” from the knowing failure to serve someone who belongs to that class. Id., at 70a. In its judgment, Mr. Phillips’s intentions were “inextricably tied to the sexual orientation of the parties involved” and essentially “irrational.” Ibid.¶verify

Nothing in the Commission’s opinions suggests any neutral principle to reconcile these holdings. If Mr. Phillips’s objection is “inextricably tied” to a protected class, then the bakers’ objection in Mr. Jack’s case must be “inextricably tied” to one as well. For just as cakes celebrating same-sex weddings are (usually) requested by persons of a particular sexual orientation, so too are cakes expressing religious opposition to same-sex weddings (usually) requested by persons of particular religious faiths. In both cases the bakers’ objection would (usually) result in turning down customers who bear a protected characteristic. In the end, the Commission’s decisions simply reduce to this: it presumed that Mr. Phillip harbored an intent to discriminate against a protected class in light of the foreseeable effects of his conduct, but it declined to presume the same intent in Mr. Jack’s case even though the effects of the bakers’ conduct were just as foreseeable. Underscoring the double standard, a state appellate court said that “no such showing” of actual “animus”—or intent to discriminate against persons in a protected class—was even required in Mr. Phillips’s case. 370 P. 3d, at 282.¶verify

The Commission cannot have it both ways. The Commission cannot slide up and down the mens rea scale, picking a mental state standard to suit its tastes depending on its sympathies. Either actual proof of intent to discriminate on the basis of membership in a protected class is required (as the Commission held in Mr. Jack’s case), or it is sufficient to “presume” such intent from the knowing failure to serve someone in a protected class (as the Commission held in Mr. Phillips’s case). Perhaps the Commission could have chosen either course as an initial matter. But the one thing it can’t do is apply a more generous legal test to secular objections than religious ones. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, 508 U. S., at 543–544. That is anything but the neutral treatment of religion.¶verify

The real explanation for the Commission’s discrimination soon comes clear, too—and it does anything but help its cause. This isn’t a case where the Commission selfconsciously announced a change in its legal rule in all public accommodation cases. Nor is this a case where the Commission offered some persuasive reason for its discrimination that might survive strict scrutiny. Instead, as the Court explains, it appears the Commission wished to condemn Mr. Phillips for expressing just the kind of “irrational” or “offensive . . . message” that the bakers in the first case refused to endorse. Ante, at 16. Many may agree with the Commission and consider Mr. Phillips’s religious beliefs irrational or offensive. Some may believe he misinterprets the teachings of his faith. And, to be sure, this Court has held same-sex marriage a matter of constitutional right and various States have enacted laws that preclude discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. But it is also true that no bureaucratic judgment condemning a sincerely held religious belief as “irrational” or “offensive” will ever survive strict scrutiny under the First Amendment. In this country, the place of secular officials isn’t to sit in judgment of religious beliefs, but only to protect their free exercise. Just as it is the “proudest boast of our free speech jurisprudence” that we protect speech that we hate, it must be the proudest boast of our free exercise jurisprudence that we protect religious beliefs that we find offensive. See Matal v. Tam , 582 U. S. ___, ___ (2017) (plurality opinion) (slip op., at 25) (citing United States v. Schwimmer , 279 U. S. 644, 655 (1929) (Holmes, J., dissenting)). Popular religious views are easy enough to defend. It is in protecting unpopular religious beliefs that we prove this country’s commitment to serving as a refuge for religious freedom. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, supra , at 547; Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div. , 450 U. S. 707, 715–716 (1981); Wisconsin v. Yoder , 406 U. S. 205, 223–224 (1972); Cantwell v. Connecticut , 310 U. S. 296, 308–310 (1940).¶verify

Nor can any amount of after-the-fact maneuvering by¶verify

our colleagues save the Commission. It is no answer, for example, to observe that Mr. Jack requested a cake with text on it while Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins sought a cake celebrating their wedding without discussing its decoration, and then suggest this distinction makes all the difference. See post, at 4–5, and n. 4 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting). It is no answer either simply to slide up a level of generality to redescribe Mr. Phillips’s case as involving only a wedding cake like any other, so the fact that Mr. Phillips would make one for some means he must make them for all. See ante, at 2–3, and n. (KAGAN, J., concurring). These arguments, too, fail to afford Mr. Phillips’s faith neutral respect.¶verify

Take the first suggestion first. To suggest that cakes with words convey a message but cakes without words do not—all in order to excuse the bakers in Mr. Jack’s case while penalizing Mr. Phillips—is irrational. Not even the Commission or court of appeals purported to rely on that distinction. Imagine Mr. Jack asked only for a cake with a symbolic expression against same-sex marriage rather than a cake bearing words conveying the same idea. Surely the Commission would have approved the bakers’ intentional wish to avoid participating in that message too. Nor can anyone reasonably doubt that a wedding cake without words conveys a message. Words or not and whatever the exact design, it celebrates a wedding, and if the wedding cake is made for a same-sex couple it celebrates a same-sex wedding. See 370 P. 3d, at 276 (stating that Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins “requested that Phillips design and create a cake to celebrate their same-sex wedding ”) (emphasis added). Like “an emblem or flag,” a cake for a same-sex wedding is a symbol that serves as “a short cut from mind to mind,” signifying approval of a specific “system, idea, [or] institution.” West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette , 319 U. S. 624, 632 (1943). It is precisely that approval that Mr. Phillips intended to withhold in keeping with his religious faith. The Commission denied Mr. Phillips that choice, even as it afforded the bakers in Mr. Jack’s case the choice to refuse to advance a message they deemed offensive to their secular commitments. That is not neutral.¶verify

Nor would it be proper for this or any court to suggest that a person must be forced to write words rather than create a symbol before his religious faith is implicated. Civil authorities, whether “high or petty,” bear no license to declare what is or should be “orthodox” when it comes to religious beliefs, id., at 642, or whether an adherent has “correctly perceived” the commands of his religion, Thomas, supra, at 716. Instead, it is our job to look beyond the formality of written words and afford legal protection to any sincere act of faith. See generally Hurley v. IrishAmerican Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc. , 515 U. S. 557, 569 (1995) (“[T]he Constitution looks beyond written or spoken words as mediums of expression,” which are “not a condition of constitutional protection”).¶verify

The second suggestion fares no better. Suggesting that this case is only about “wedding cakes”—and not a wedding cake celebrating a same-sex wedding—actually points up the problem. At its most general level, the cake at issue in Mr. Phillips’s case was just a mixture of flour and eggs; at its most specific level, it was a cake celebrating the same-sex wedding of Mr. Craig and Mr. Mullins. We are told here, however, to apply a sort of Goldilocks rule: describing the cake by its ingredients is too general ; understanding it as celebrating a same-sex wedding is too specific ; but regarding it as a generic wedding cake is just right . The problem is, the Commission didn’t play with the level of generality in Mr. Jack’s case in this way. It didn’t declare, for example, that because the cakes Mr. Jack requested were just cakes about weddings generally, and all such cakes were the same, the bakers had to pro- duce them. Instead, the Commission accepted the bakers’ view that the specific cakes Mr. Jack requested conveyed a message offensive to their convictions and allowed them to refuse service. Having done that there, it must do the same here.¶verify

Any other conclusion would invite civil authorities to gerrymander their inquiries based on the parties they prefer. Why calibrate the level of generality in Mr. Phillips’s case at “wedding cakes” exactly—and not at, say, “cakes” more generally or “cakes that convey a message regarding same-sex marriage” more specifically? If “cakes” were the relevant level of generality, the Commission would have to order the bakers to make Mr. Jack’s requested cakes just as it ordered Mr. Phillips to make the requested cake in his case. Conversely, if “cakes that convey a message regarding same-sex marriage” were the relevant level of generality, the Commission would have to respect Mr. Phillips’s refusal to make the requested cake just as it respected the bakers’ refusal to make the cakes Mr. Jack requested. In short, when the same level of generality is applied to both cases, it is no surprise that the bakers have to be treated the same. Only by adjusting the dials just right —fine-tuning the level of generality up or down for each case based solely on the identity of the parties and the substance of their views—can you engineer the Commission’s outcome, handing a win to Mr. Jack’s bakers but delivering a loss to Mr. Phillips. Such results-driven reasoning is improper. Neither the Commission nor this Court may apply a more specific level of generality in Mr. Jack’s case (a cake that conveys a message regarding same-sex marriage) while applying a higher level of generality in Mr. Phillips’s case (a cake that conveys no message regarding same-sex marriage). Of course, under Smith a vendor cannot escape a public accommodations law just because his religion frowns on it. But for any law to comply with the First Amendment and¶verify

Smith , it must be applied in a manner that treats religion with neutral respect. That means the government must apply the same level of generality across cases—and that did not happen here.¶verify

There is another problem with sliding up the generality scale: it risks denying constitutional protection to religious beliefs that draw distinctions more specific than the government’s preferred level of description. To some, all wedding cakes may appear indistinguishable. But to Mr. Phillips that is not the case—his faith teaches him otherwise. And his religious beliefs are entitled to no less respectful treatment than the bakers’ secular beliefs in Mr. Jack’s case. This Court has explained these same points “[r]epeatedly and in many different contexts” over many years. Smith , 494 U. S. at 887. For example, in Thomas a faithful Jehovah’s Witness and steel mill worker agreed to help manufacture sheet steel he knew might find its way into armaments, but he was unwilling to work on a fabrication line producing tank turrets. 450 U. S., at 711. Of course, the line Mr. Thomas drew wasn’t the same many others would draw and it wasn’t even the same line many other members of the same faith would draw. Even so, the Court didn’t try to suggest that making steel is just making steel. Or that to offend his religion the steel needed to be of a particular kind or shape. Instead, it recognized that Mr. Thomas alone was entitled to define the nature of his religious commitments—and that those commitments, as defined by the faithful adherent, not a bureaucrat or judge, are entitled to protection under the First Amendment. Id., at 714–716; see also United States v. Lee , 455 U. S. 252, 254–255 (1982); Smith , supra, at 887 (collecting authorities). It is no more appropriate for the United States Supreme Court to tell Mr. Phillips that a wedding cake is just like any other—without regard to the religious significance his faith may attach to it—than it would be for the Court to suggest that for all persons sacramental bread is just bread or a kippah is just a cap.¶verify

Only one way forward now remains. Having failed to afford Mr. Phillips’s religious objections neutral consideration and without any compelling reason for its failure, the Commission must afford him the same result it afforded the bakers in Mr. Jack’s case. The Court recognizes this by reversing the judgment below and holding that the Commission’s order “must be set aside.” Ante, at 18. Maybe in some future rulemaking or case the Commission could adopt a new “knowing” standard for all refusals of service and offer neutral reasons for doing so. But, as the Court observes, “[h]owever later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, . . . the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission’s order” in this case “must be invalidated.” Ibid . Mr. Phillips has conclusively proven a First Amendment violation and, after almost six years facing unlawful civil charges, he is entitled to judgment.¶verify