- Court: United States Supreme Court
- Area(s) of Law: First Amendment
- Date Filed: June 4, 2018
- Case #: 16-111
- Judge(s)/Court Below: KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and BREYER, ALITO, KAGAN, and GORSUCH, JJ., joined. KAGAN,J., filed a concurring opinion, in which BREYER, J., joined. GORSUCH, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined. THOMAS, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment, in which GORSUCH, J., joined. GINSBURG, J., filed a dissenting opinion, in which SOTOMAYOR, J., joined.
- Full Text Opinion
Petitioner is a devout Christian that owns a bakery in Colorado. Respondents are a same-sex couple that requested Petitioner to make a wedding cake for their wedding out of state (Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriage at the time). Petitioner informed the couple that he would not make a wedding cake for them due to his religious objection to same-sex marriage. Respondents subsequently filed a complaint claiming Petitioner had violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination statute because sexual orientation is a protected class. The case was eventually referred to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (“Commission”). The Commission eventually found that Petitioner violated Colorado’s anti-discrimination statute. But, during the two public on-the-record hearings on the dispute, some commissioners indicated that “religious beliefs cannot legitimately be carried into the public sphere or commercial domain, implying that religious beliefs and persons are less than fully welcome in Colorado’s business community.” In addition, the Commission had previously agreed with religious bakers refusing to make cakes that contravened their respective religions. According to the Supreme Court majority, those illustrations exemplify the kind of religious hostility that the First Amendment cannot tolerate. Simply put, the State cannot “base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.” Without addressing any ancillary arguments, the Court reversed and remanded the Colorado Court of Appeals’ affirmance of the Commissions’ decision.