wedding cake for a reception in coloradomr phillips turned them down saying he would not use his talents to convey a message of support for samesex marriage at odds with his religious faith mr mullins and mr craig said they were humiliated by mr phillipss refusal to serve them and they filed a complaint with colorados civil rights commission saying that mr phillips had violated a state law barring discrimination based on sexual orientationmr mullins and mr craig won before the commission and in the state courtsthe colorado court of appeals ruled that mr phillipss free speech rights had not been violated noting that the couple had not discussed the cakes design before mr phillips turned them down the court added that people seeing the cake would not understand mr phillips to be making a statement and that he remained free to say what he liked about samesex marriage in other settingsthough the case was mostly litigated on free speech grounds justice kennedys opinion barely discussed the issue instead he focused on what he said were flaws in the proceedings before the commission members of the panel he wrote had acted with clear and impermissible hostility to sincerely held religious beliefsone commissioner in particular justice kennedy wrote had crossed the line in saying that freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history whether it be slavery whether it be the holocaustjustice kennedy wrote that this sentiment is inappropriate for a commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of colorados antidiscrimination lawin dissent justice ginsburg said that a few stray remarks were not enough to justify a ruling in mr phillipss favorwhat prejudice infected the determinations of the adjudicators in the case before and after the commission justice ginsburg asked the court does not sayjustice kennedy wrote that the commission had also acted inconsistently in cases involving an opponent of samesex marriage concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriagesimagecredittom brennerthe new york timesin dueling concurring opinions two sets of justices debated how central that last observation was to the courts decision justice kagan joined by justice breyer said such differing treatment could be justified justice gorsuch joined by justice alito disagreed saying that the two cases share all legally salient featuresin another concurring opinion justice thomas joined by justice gorsuch said he would have ruled in favor of mr phillips on free speech grounds mr phillipss cakes are artistic expression worthy of first amendment protection justice thomas wrote and requiring him to endorse marriages at odds with his faith violated his constitutional rightsin dissent justice ginsburg disagreed with that analysis and noted that the majority had not adopted it she wrote that there was no reason to think that people seeing a wedding cake made by mr phillips would understand it to be conveying his views on samesex marriagealliance defending freedom