…the critical question of when and how Phillips\u2019 right to exercise his religion can be limited had to be determined, Kennedy emphasized, in a proceeding that was not tainted by hostility to religion. Here, Kennedy observed, the \u201cneutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised\u201d by comments by members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. At one hearing, Kennedy stressed, commissioners repeatedly \u201cendorsed the view 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\u2019s business community.\u201d And at a later meeting, Kennedy pointed out, one commissioner \u201ceven went so far as to compare Phillips\u2019 invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust.\u201d \u201cThis sentiment,\u201d Kennedy admonished, \u201cis inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado\u2019s anti-discrimination law\u2014a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.\u201d Moreover, Kennedy added, the commission\u2019s treatment of Phillips\u2019 religious objections was at odds with its rulings in the cases of bakers who refused to create cakes \u201cwith images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage.\u201d<\/p>\n
Here, Kennedy wrote, Phillips \u201cwas entitled to a neutral decisionmaker who would give full and fair consideration to his religious objection as he sought to assert it in all of the circumstances in which this case was presented, considered, and decided.\u201d Because he did not have such a proceeding, the court concluded, the commission\u2019s order \u2013 which, among other things, required Phillips to sell same-sex couples wedding cakes or anything else that he would sell to opposite-sex couples and mandated remedial training and compliance reports \u2013 \u201cmust be set aside.\u201d<\/p>\n
But the majority left open the possibility that a future case could come out differently, particularly if the decisionmaker in the case considered religious objections neutrally and fairly. Other cases, the majority emphasized, \u201cmust await further elaboration in the courts, all in the context of recognizing that these disputes must be resolved with tolerance, without undue disrespect to sincere religious beliefs, and without subjecting gay persons to indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market.\u201d <\/p>\n