*607OPINION

CHÁVEZ, Justice.

By enacting the New Mexico Human Rights Act (NMHRA), NMSA 1978, §§ 28-1-1 to-13 (1969, as amended through 2007), the Legislature has made the policy decision to prohibit public accommodations from discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation. Elane Photography, which does not contest its public accommodation status under the NMHRA, offers wedding photography services to the general public and posts its photographs on a password-protected website for its customers. In this case, Elane Photography refused to photograph a commitment ceremony between two women. The questions presented are (1) whether Elane Photography violated the NMHRA when it refused to photograph the commitment ceremony, and if so, (2) whether this application of the NMHRA violates either the Free Speech or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, or (3) whether this application violates the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act (NMRFRA),NMSA 1978, §§ 28-22-1 to -5 (2000).

First, we conclude that a commercial photography business that offers its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, is subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and must serve same-sex couples on the same basis that it serves opposite-sex couples. Therefore, when Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.

Second, we conclude that the NMHRA does not violate free speech guarantees because the NMHRA does not compel Elane Photography to either speak a government-mandated message or to publish the speech of another. The purpose of the NMHRA is to ensure that businesses offering services to the general public do not discriminate against protected classes of people, and the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that the First Amendment permits such regulation by states. Businesses that choose to be public accommodations must comply with the NMHRA, although such businesses retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious or political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws. We also hold that the NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability, and as such, it does not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

Finally, we hold that the NMRFRA is inapplicable in this case because the government is not a party. For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.

BACKGROUND

The NMHRA prohibits, among other things, discriminatory practices against certain defined classes of people. See § 28-1-7. In 2003, the NMHRA was amended to add “sexual orientation” as a class of persons protected from discriminatory treatment. 2003 N.M. Laws, ch. 383, § 2. “Sexual orientation” is defined in the NMHRA as “heterosexuality, homosexuality or bisexuality, whether actual or perceived.” Section 28-1-2(P). In this case, we are *608concerned with discrimination by a public accommodation against a person because of that person’s real or perceived homosexuality — that person’s propensity to experience feelings of attraction and romantic love for other members of the same sex.

“Public accommodation” is defined in the NMHRA as “any establishment that provides or offers its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to the public, but does not include a bona fide private club or other place or establishment that is by its nature and use distinctly private.” Section 28-1-2(H). Thus, a business that elects not to offer its goods or services to the public is not subject to the NMHRA.

Vanessa Willock contacted Elane Photography, LLC, by e-mail to inquire about Elane Photography’s services and to determine whether it would be available to photograph her commitment ceremony1 to another woman. Elane Photography’s co-owner and lead photographer, Elaine Huguenin, is personally opposed to same-sex marriage and will not photograph any image or event that violates her religious beliefs. Huguenin responded to Willock that Elane Photography photographed only “traditional weddings.” Willock e-mailed back and asked, “Are you saying that your company does not offer your photography services to same-sex couples?” Huguenin responded, “Yes, you are correct in saying we do not photograph same-sex weddings,” and thanked Willock for her interest.

In order to verify Elane Photography’s policy, Willock’s partner, Misti Collinsworth, e-mailed Elane Photography and inquired about its willingness to photograph a wedding, without mentioning the sexes of the participants. Huguenin sent Collinsworth a list of pricing information and an invitation to meet with her and discuss her services. A few weeks later, Huguenin again e-mailed Collinsworth to follow up.

Willock filed a discrimination complaint against Elane Photography with the New Mexico Human Rights Commission for discriminating against her based on her sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA. The Commission concluded that Elane Photography had discriminated against Willock in violation of Section 28-1-7(F), which prohibits discrimination by public accommodations on the basis of sexual orientation, among other protected classifications. It awarded Willock attorneys’ fees, which Willock later waived. No other monetary or injunctive relief was granted.

Elane Photography appealed to the Second Judicial District Court for a trial de novo pursuant to Section 28-1-13(A). See NMSA 1978, § 39-3-1 (1955) (“All appeals from inferior tribunals to the district courts shall be tried anew in said courts on their merits, as if no trial had been had below, except as otherwise provided by law.”). Elane Photography sought a reversal of the award of attorneys’ fees, a declaratory judgment that it had not discriminated on the basis of sexual orientation, and a ruling that its rights had been violated, among other relief. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, and the district court granted summary *609judgment for Willock. Elane Photography again appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. Elane Photography, LLC v. Willock, 2012-NMCA-086, ¶ 1, 284 P.3d 428. We granted certiorari.

Elane Photography argues before this Court that: (1) it did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, and therefore it did not violate the NMHRA; or, alternatively, (2) by requiring Elane Photography to accept clients against its will, the NMHRA violates the protection of the First Amendment against compelled speech; (3) the NMHRA violates Elane Photography’s First Amendment right to freely exercise its religion; and (4) the NMHRA violates Elane Photography’s right under the NMRFRA to freely exercise its religion. For the reasons that follow, we reject Elane Photography’s arguments and affirm summary judgment for Willock.

DISCUSSION

The parties agree on the facts in this case, and the only question for this Court to consider is whether Willock is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. See Self v. United Parcel Serv., Inc., 1998-NMSC-046, ¶ 6, 126 N.M. 396, 970 P.2d 582 (“Summary judgment is appropriate where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”). On appeal, we review a grant of summary judgment de novo. Id.

I. ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY REFUSED TO SERVE WILLOCK ON THE BASIS OF HER SEXUAL ORIENTATION IN VIOLATION OF THE NMHRA

The NMHRA seeks to promote the equal rights of people within certain specified classes by protecting them against discriminatory treatment. See Juneau v. Intel Corp., 2006-NMSC-002, ¶ 14, 139 N.M. 12, 127 P.3d 548 (“The NMHRA protects against discriminatory treatment . . . .”). To accomplish this goal, the NMHRA makes it unlawful for “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services, facilities, accommodations or goods to any person because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap.” Section 28-1-7(F) (emphasis added). The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s holding that Elane Photography was a public accommodation under Section 28-1-2(H), Elane Photography, 2012-NMCA-086, ¶ 18, and Elane Photography did not challenge that holding in this appeal. Accordingly, Elane Photography waived its right to challenge that conclusion as a matter of New Mexico law. See Fikes v. Furst, 2003-NMSC-033, ¶ 8, 134 N.M. 602, 81 P.3d 545 (“[I]t is improper for this Court to consider any questions except those set forth in the petition for certiorari.”). We therefore accept the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that at the time of its interactions with Willock and Collinsworth, Elane Photography was a public accommodation as defined in Section 28-1-2(H), and as such, was subject to Section 28-1-7 (F) of the NMHRA. See Elane Photography, 2012-NMCA-086, ¶¶ 14, 18.

Elane Photography argues that it did not violate the NMHRA because it did not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation when it refused service to Willock. Instead, Elane Photography explains that it “did not want to convey through [Huguenin]’s pictures the story of an event celebrating an understanding of marriage that conflicts with *610[the owners’] beliefs.” Elane Photography argues that it would have taken portrait photographs and performed other services for same-sex customers, so long as they did not request photographs that involved or endorsed same-sex weddings. However, Elane Photography’s owners testified that they would also have refused to take photos of same-sex couples in other contexts, including photos of a couple holding hands or showing affection for each other. Elane Photography also argues in its brief that it would have turned away heterosexual customers if the customers asked for photographs in a context that endorsed same-sex marriage. For example, Elane Photography states that it “would have declined the request even if the ceremony was part of a movie and the actors playing the same-sex couple were heterosexual.” Therefore, Elane Photography reasons that it did not discriminate “because of . . . sexual orientation,” § 28-1-7(F), but because it did not wish to endorse Willock’s and Collinsworth’s wedding.

The NMHRA prohibits discrimination in broad terms by forbidding “any person in any public accommodation to make a distinction, directly or indirectly, in offering or refusing to offer its services . . . because of . . . sexual orientation.” Section 28-1-7(F) (emphasis added). Elane Photography is primarily a wedding photography business. It provides wedding photography services to heterosexual couples, but it refuses to work with homosexual couples under equivalent circumstances.

Elane Photography’s argument is an attempt to distinguish between an individual’s status of being homosexual and his or her conduct in openly committing to a person of the same sex. It was apparently Willock’s email request to have Elane Photography photograph Willock’s commitment ceremony to another woman that signaled Willock’s sexual orientation to Elane Photography, regardless of whether that assessment was real or merely perceived. The difficulty in distinguishing between status and conduct in the context of sexual orientation discrimination is that people may base their judgment about an individual’s sexual orientation on the individual’s conduct. To allow discrimination based on conduct so closely correlated with sexual orientation would severely undermine the purpose of the NMHRA.

The United States Supreme Courthas rejected similar attempts to distinguish between a protected status and conduct closely correlated with that status. In Christian Legal Society Chapter of the University of California, Hastings College of the Law v. Martinez,__U.S.__,___, 130 S. Ct. 2971, 2980 (2010), students at Hastings College of the Law formed a chapter of the Christian Legal Society and sought formal recognition from the school. The Christian Legal Society required its members to affirm their belief in the divinity of Jesus Christ and to refrain from ‘“unrepentant homosexual conduct.’” Id. & id. n.3. Hastings refused to recognize the organization on the ground that it violated Hastings’ nondiscrimination policy, which prohibited exclusion based on religion or sexual orientation. Id. at___, 130 S. Ct. at 2980. The Christian Legal Society argued that “it [did] not exclude individuals because of sexual orientation, but rather on the basis of a conjunction of conduct and the belief that the conduct is not wrong.” Id. at__, 130 S. Ct. at 2990 (internal quotation marks omitted). The United States Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating:

Our decisions have declined to *611distinguish between status and conduct in this context. See Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 575, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 156 L.Ed.2d 508 (2003) (“When homosexual conduct is made criminal by the law of the State, that declaration in and of itself is an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination.” (emphasis added)); id., at 583, 123 S.Ct. 2472 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“While it is true that the law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the] law is targeted at more than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”); cf. Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263, 270, 113 S.Ct. 753, 122 L.Ed.2d 34 (1993) (“A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews.”).

Id. We agree that when a law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, that law similarly protects conduct that is inextricably tied to sexual orientation. Otherwise we would interpret the NMHRA as protecting same-gender couples against discriminatory treatment, but only to the extent that they do not openly display their same-gender sexual orientation.

In this case, we see no basis for distinguishing between discrimination based on sexual orientation and discrimination based on someone’s conduct of publicly committing to a person of the same sex. Our role is to determine and follow the intent of the Legislature, State v. Hall, 2013-NMSC-001, ¶ 9, 294 P.3d 1235, and the NMHRA evinces a clear intent to prevent discrimination as it is broadly defined in Section 28-1-7(F). New Mexico has a strong state policy of promoting equality for its residents regardless of sexual orientation. See Section 28-1-7 (defining unlawful discriminatory practices); NMSA 1978, § 29-21-2 (2009) (prohibiting profiling by law enforcement on the basis of sexual orientation); NMSA 1978, § 31-18B-2(D) (2007) (including sexual orientation as a protected status under the Hate Crimes Act); Chatterjee v. King, 2012-NMSC-019, ¶ 36, 280 P.3d 283 (recognizing that a child can have two legal parents of the same sex); In re Jacinta M., 1988-NMCA-100, ¶ 11, 107 N.M. 769, 764 P.2d 1327 (holding that a children’s court could not find a custodian unsuitable solely because of his or her sexual orientation). As a matter of New Mexico law, the NMHRA prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to serve a client based on sexual orientation, and Elane Photography violated the law by refusing to photograph Willock’s same-sex commitment ceremony.

We are not persuaded by Elane Photography’s argument that it does not violate the NMHRA because it will photograph a gay person (for example, in single-person portraits) so long as the photographs do not reflect the client’s sexual preferences. The NMHRA prohibits public accommodations from making any distinction in the services they offer to customers on the basis ofprotected classifications. Section 28-1-7(F). For example, if a restaurant offers a full menu to male customers, it may not refuse to serve entrees to women, even if it will serve them appetizers. The NMHRA does not permit businesses to offer a “limited menu” of goods or services to customers on the basis of a status that fits within one of the protected *612categories. Therefore, Elane Photography’s willingness to offer some services to Willock does not cure its refusal to provide other services that it offered to the general public. Similarly, it does not help Elane Photography to argue that it would have turned away heterosexual polygamous weddings or heterosexual persons pretending to have a same-sex wedding. Those situations are not at issue here, and, if anything, these arguments support a finding that Elane Photography intended to discriminate against Willock based on her same-sex sexual orientation. Therefore, we hold that Elane Photography discriminated against Willock on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the NMHRA.

II. THE NMHRA DOES NOT VIOLATE ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY’S FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS

Elane Photography challenges enforcement of the NMHRA on the grounds that enforcement of the law violates its right to free speech and the free exercise of its religion under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. For the reasons that follow, we reject both of these arguments.

A. THE NMHRA DOES NOT VIOLATE ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY’S FREE SPEECH RIGHTS

Specifically regarding its free speech rights, Elane Photography argues that the NMHRA compels it to speak in violation of the First Amendment by requiring it to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, even though it is against the owners’ personal beliefs. We disagree.

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech.” U.S. Const. amend. I. This prohibition applies equally to state governments. Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652, 666 (1925) (assuming without deciding that free speech and press rights are incorporated by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U.S. 229, 235 (1963) (“It has long been established that these First Amendment freedoms [of speech, assembly, and petition] are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment from invasion by the States.”). United States Supreme Court precedent makes it clear that the right to speak freely includes the right to refrain from speaking. See, e.g., Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977) (“[T]he right of freedom of thought protected by the First Amendment against state action includes both the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking at all.”).

Elane Photography observes that photography is an expressive art form and that photographs can fall within the constitutional protections of free speech. See Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Boston, 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995) (observing that abstract art and instrumental music are “unquestionably shielded” by the First Amendment). Elane Photography also states that in the course of its business, it creates and edits photographs for its clients so as to tell a positive story about each wedding it photographs, and the company and its owners would prefer not to send a positive message about same-sex weddings or same-sex marriage. Elane Photography concludes that by requiring it to photograph same-sex weddings on the same basis that it photographs opposite-sex weddings, the NMHRA unconstitutionally compels it to “create and engage in expression” that sends a positive message about same-sex marriage not shared by its owner.

*613The compelled-speech doctrine on which Elane Photography relies is comprised of two lines of cases. The first line of cases establishes the proposition that the government may not require an individual to “speak the government’s message.” Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic & Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 63 (2006). The second line of cases prohibits the government from requiring a private actor “to host or accommodate another speaker’s message.” Id. Elane Photography argues that by requiring it to photograph same-sex weddings on the same basis as opposite-sex weddings, the NMHRA violates both prohibitions. We address each argument in turn.

1. The NMHRA does not compel Elane Photography to speak the government’s message

The right to refrain from speaking was established in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943), in which the United States Supreme Court held that the State of West Virginia could not constitutionally require students to salute the American flag and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. The Court held that a state could not require “affirmation of a belief and an attitude of mind,” id. at 633, and that the state had impermissibly “invade[d] the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control,” id. at 642.

Similarly, in Wooley, 430 U.S. at 717, the United States Supreme Court held that the State of New Hampshire could not constitutionally punish a man for covering the state motto on the license plate of his car. The Wooley plaintiffs considered “Live Free or Die,” the state motto, “repugnant to their moral, religious, and political beliefs,” id. at 707, and they raised a First Amendment challenge to the state’s law forbidding residents to hide or alter the motto. Id. at 709, 713. The Wooley Court framed the question presented as “whether the State may constitutionally require an individual to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message by displaying it on his [or her] private property in a manner and for the express purpose that it be observed and read by the public” and concluded that the measure was unconstitutional. Id. at 713.

Elane Photography reads Wooley and Barnette to mean that the government may not compel people “to engage in unwanted expression.” However, the cases themselves are narrower than Elane Photography suggests; they involve situations in which the speakers were compelled to publicly “speak the government’s message.” Rumsfeld, 547 U.S. at 63. In Wooley and Barnette, the respective states impermissibly required their residents to affirm or display a specific government-selected message: “Live Free or Die” in Wooley, 430 U.S. at 707, and allegiance to the flag in Barnette, 319 U.S. at 632-33. Both cases stand for the proposition that the First Amendment does not permit the government to “prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Barnette, 319 U.S. at 642. However, unlike the laws at issue in Wooley and Barnette, the NMHRA does not require Elane Photography to recite or display any message. It does not even require Elane Photography to take photographs. The NMHRA only mandates that if Elane Photography operates a business as a public accommodation, it cannot discriminate against potential clients based on their sexual orientation.

*614Furthermore, the laws at issue in Wooley and Barnette had little purpose other than to promote the government-sanctioned message. See Wooley, 430 U.S. at 716-17 (rejecting the state’s contentions that (1) the state motto made it easier for law enforcement to identify improper license plates, and (2) the state hoped “to communicate to others an official view as to proper appreciation of history, state pride, and individualism”); Barnette, 319 U.S. at 640 (identifying “national unity” as the goal of compulsory flag salutes (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). The Barnette Court noted that the dissenting students’ choice not to salute the flag “[did] not bring them into collision with rights asserted by any other individual.” 319 U.S. at 630. That is not the case here, where Elane Photography’s asserted right not to serve same-sex couples directly conflicts with Willock’s rightunder Section 28-1-7(F) of the NME1RA to obtain goods and services from a public accommodation without discrimination on the basis of her sexual orientation. Antidiscrimination laws have important purposes that go beyond expressing government values: they ensure that services are freely available in the market, and they protect individuals from humiliation and dignitary harm. See Daniel v. Paul, 395 U.S. 298, 307-08 (1969) (stating that the purpose of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was “to [re]move the daily affront and humiliation involved in discriminatory denials of access to facilities ostensibly open to the general public” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U.S. 294,299-300 (1964) (discussing the economic impact of discrimination in public accommodations).

The fact that compliance with the NMHRA will require Elane Photography to produce photographs for same-sex weddings to the extent that it would provide those services to a heterosexual couple does not mean that the NMHRA compels speech in the manner of the laws challenged in Wooley and Barnette. Elane Photography’s argumenthere is more analogous to the claims raised by the law schools in Rumsfeld. In that case, a federal law made universities’ federal funding contingent on the universities allowing military recruiters access to university facilities and services on the same basis as other, non-military recruiters. 547 U.S. at 52-53. A group of law schools that objected to the ban on gays in the military challenged the law on a number of constitutional grounds, including that the law in question compelled them to speak the government’s message. Id. at 52, 53, 61-62. In order to assist the military recruiters, schools had to provide services that involved speech, “such as sending e-mails and distributing flyers.” Id. at 60.

The United States Supreme Court held that this requirement did not constitute compelled speech. Id. at 62. The Court observed that the federal law “neither limits what law schools may say nor requires them to say anything.” Id. at 60. Schools were compelled only to provide the type of speech-related services to military recruiters that they provided to non-military recruiters. Id. at 62. “There [was] nothing . . . approaching a Government-mandated pledge or motto that the school [had to] endorse.” Id.

The same situation is true in the instant case. Like the law in Rumsfeld, the NMHRA does not require any affirmation of belief by regulated public accommodations; instead, it requires businesses that offer services to the public at large to provide those services without regard for race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected classifications. Section 28-1 -7(F). The fact that these services *615may involve speech or other expressive services does not render the NMHRA unconstitutional. See Rumsfeld, 547 U.S. at 62 (“The compelled speech to which the law schools point is plainly incidental to the [law’s] regulation of conduct, and it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Elane Photography is compelled to take photographs of same-sex weddings only to the extent that it would provide the same services to a heterosexual couple. See id. at 62 (speech assisting military recruiters was “only ‘compelled’ if, and to the extent, the school provide [d] such speech for other recruiters”).

2. The NMHRA does not compel Elane Photography to host or accommodate the message of another speaker

a. State laws prohibiting discrimination by public accommodations do not constitute compelled speech

The second line of compelled-speech cases deals with situations in which a government entity has required a speaker to “host or accommodate another speaker’s message.” Id. at 63. Elane Photography argues that a same-sex wedding or commitment ceremony is an expressive event, and that by requiring it to accept a client who is having a same-sex wedding, the NMHRA compels it to facilitate the messages inherent in that event. Elane Photography argues that there are two messages conveyed by a same-sex wedding or commitment ceremony: first, that such ceremonies exist, and second, that these occasions deserve celebration and approval. Elane Photography does not wish to convey either of these messages.

TheUnited States Supreme Court has never found a compelled-speech violation arising from the application of antidiscrimination laws to a for-profit public accommodation. In fact, it has suggested that public accommodation laws are generally constitutional. See Hurley, 515 U.S. at 572 (“Provisions like these are well within the State’s usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments .... [T]he focal point of [such statutes is] rather on the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services on the proscribed grounds.”). The United States Supreme Court has found constitutional problems with some applications of state public accommodation laws, but those problems have arisen when states have applied their public accommodation laws to free-speech events such as privately organized parades, id. at 566, 573, 580-81, and private membership organizations, Boy Scouts of Am. v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 659, 659 n.4 (2000).2 Elane Photography, however, is an ordinary public accommodation, a “clearly commercial entitfy],” id. at 657, that sells goods and services to the public.

The NMHRA does not, nor could it, regulate the content of the photographs that Elane Photography produces. It does not, for example, mandate that Elane Photography take posed photographs rather than candid *616shots, nor does it require every wedding album to contain a picture of the bride’s bouquet. Indeed, the NMHRA does not mandate that Elane Photography choose to take wedding pictures; that is the exclusive choice of Elane Photography. Like all public accommodation laws, the NMHRA regulates “the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services on the proscribed grounds.” See Hurley, 515 U.S. at 572 (describing the Massachusetts public accommodation law). Elane Photography argues that because the service it provides is photography, and because photography is expressive, “some of [the] images will inevitably express the messages inherent in [the] event.” In essence, then, Elane Photography argues that by limiting its ability to choose its clients, the NMHRA forces it to produce photographs expressing its clients’ messages even when the messages are contrary to Elane Photography’s beliefs.

Elane Photography has misunderstood this issue. It believes that because it is a photography business, it cannot be subject to public accommodation laws. The reality is that because it is a public accommodation, its provision of services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work. If Elane Photography took photographs on its own time and sold them at a gallery, or if it was hired by certain clients but did not offer its services to the general public, the law would not apply to Elane Photography’s choice of whom to photograph or not. The difference in the present case is that the photographs that are allegedly compelled by the NMHRA are photographs that Elane Photography produces for hire in the ordinary course of its business as a public accommodation. This determination has no relation to the artistic merit of photographs produced by Elane Photography. If Annie Leibovitz or Peter Lindbergh worked as public accommodations in New Mexico, they would be subject to the provisions of the NMHRA. Unlike the defendants in Hurley or the other cases in which the United States Supreme Court has found compelled-speech violations, Elane Photography sells its expressive services to the public. It may be that Elane Photography expresses its clients’ messages in its photographs, but only because it is hired to do so. The NMHRA requires that Elane Photography perform the same services for a same-sex couple as it would for an opposite-sex couple; the fact that these services require photography stems from the nature of Elane Photography’s chosen line of business.

The cases in which the United States Supreme Court found that the government unconstitutionally required a speaker to host or accommodate another speaker’s message are distinctly different because they involve direct government interference with the speaker’s own message, as opposed to a message-for-hire. In two cases, the Court found a compelled-speech problem where the government explicitly required a publisher to distribute an opposing point of view. In the first of these cases, Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 244 (1974), the United States Supreme Court invalidated Florida’s ‘“right of reply’” statute. The law provided that if a candidate for public office was criticized in a Florida newspaper, the candidate could demand that the newspaper print his or her reply, free of cost, in as conspicuous a location as the criticism that had appeared. Id. The Court expressed concern that the statute might deter editors from printing criticism of candidates, thereby *617chilling political news coverage and commentary in the state. Id. at 257. Furthermore, the statute unconstitutionally wrested control over editorial decisions about “[t]he choice of material to go into a newspaper, and the decisions made as to limitations on the size and content of the paper, and treatment of public issues and public officials” away from the editors and into the hands of the state. Id. at 258.

Similarly, in Pacific Gas & Electric Co. v. Public Utilities Commission of California, 475 U.S. 1, 4, 20-21, 26 (1986) (plurality opinion; Marshall, J., concurring in judgment), a plurality of the United States Supreme Court held unconstitutional a decision by the California Public Utilities Commission to allow a third-party group to send out messages with a utility’s billing statements. The utility had traditionally distributed a newsletter to its customers with its monthly billing statements. Id. at 5 (plurality opinion). The Public Utility Commission decided that the space in the billing envelopes belonged to the customers, not to the utility, and it allowed an intervenor in a ratemaking proceeding involving the utility to send out messages in the utility’s billing envelopes four times per year. Id. at 5-6, 13 (plurality opinion). Citing Tornillo, the United States Supreme Court held that this decision unconstitutionally compelled the utility to accommodate the intervenor’s speech. Pacific Gas, 475 U.S. at 9-13 (plurality opinion). The Court noted that the Commission’s ruling required the utility to disseminate messages that were hostile to the utility’s own interests, id. at 14 (plurality opinion), and, depending on what the intervenors said, the utility might “be forced either to appear to agree with [the intervenors’] views or to respond,” when it would have preferred to remain silent on an issue. Id. at 15 (plurality opinion).

In both Pacific Gas and Tornillo, the government commandeered a speaker’s means of reaching its audience and required the speaker to disseminate an opposing point of view. Nothing analogous occurred in the present case. Elane Photography is not required to print the names and addresses of rival photographers in its albums, nor does Elane Photography distribute a newsletter in which the government has required it to print someone else’s ideas. Instead, the allegedly compelled message is Elane Photography’s own work on behalf of its clients, which it distributes only to its clients and their loved ones. The government has not interfered with Elane Photography’s editorial judgment; the only choice regulated is Elane Photography’s choice of clients.

In addition, although Elane Photography raises concerns that its speech will be chilled, there is no risk of a chilling effect in this case. In Tornillo, the ‘“right of reply’” statute could have discouraged newspapers from printing criticism of political candidates. 418 U.S. at 257. By contrast, the relevant choice facing Elane Photography and similar businesses is not whether to publish a story, as in Tornillo, but whether to operate as a public accommodation. If a commercial photography business wishes to offer its services to the public, thereby increasing its visibility to potential clients, it will be subject to the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA. If a commercial photography business believes that the NMHRA stifles its creativity, it can remain in business, but it can cease to offer its services to the public at large. Elane Photography’s choice to offer its services to the public is a business decision, not a decision about its freedom of speech.

*618In Pacific Gas and Tornillo, a government entity overtly required a speaker to publicize an opposing message. Elane Photography cites a third case, Hurley, in which the compelled-speech violation was more subtle. In Hurley, 515 U.S. at 560-61, the private organizers of the Boston St. Patrick’s Day parade denied the application of a group of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Irish-Americans (known as GLIB) to march as a unit in the parade. Id. at 561. Massachusetts courts held that this constituted discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. Id. at 561, 563-64. The United States Supreme Court reversed, holding that the parade did not discriminate against gay participants; instead, the issue was “the admission of GLIB as its own parade unit carrying its own banner,” which had unquestionable expressive content. Id. at 572, 581.

Hurley is different from the instant case in two significant ways. First, the Massachusetts courts appear to have erroneously classified the privately organized parade as a public accommodation. See id. at 573 (“[T]he state courts’ application of the statute had the effect of declaring the sponsors’ speech itself to be the public accommodation.”). Second, parades by their nature express a message to the public. Id. at 568. By requiring the parade organizers to include GLIB, the Massachusetts courts directly altered the expressive content of the parade. Id. at 572-73. The presence of a group in a parade carries expressive weight, and Hurley implicated associational rights as well as free-speech rights. Id. at 565; see Dale, 530 U.S. at 659 (“Although we did not explicitly deem the parade in Hurley an expressive association, the analysis we applied there is similar to the analysis we apply here.”). Elane Photography argues that photographs are also inherently expressive, so Hurley must apply to this case as well. However, the NMHRA applies not to Elane Photography’s photographs but to its business operation, and in particular, its business decision not to offer its services to protected classes of people. While photography may be expressive, the operation of a photography business is not. By way of analogy, the NMHRA could not dictate which groups a parade organizer had to include. However, if a business sold parade-planning services, and that business operated as a public accommodation, the NMHRA would prohibit that business from refusing to offer parade-planning services to persons because of their sexual orientation. Thus, Elane Photography’s reliance on Hurley is misplaced.

Elane Photography’s situation is actually clearer than that of our hypothetical business that organized parades, because even a parade for hire would still be a public event. See id. at 568 (describing the public nature of parades and their dependence on parade-watchers). By contrast, Elane Photography does not routinely publish for or display its wedding photographs to the public. Instead, it creates an album for each customer and posts the photographs on a password-protected website for the customers and their friends and family to view. Whatever message Elane Photography’s photographs may express, they express that message only to the clients and their loved ones, not to the public.

We note that when Elane Photography displays its photographs publicly and on its own behalf, rather than for a client, such as in advertising, its choices of which photographs to display are entirely its own. The NMHRA does not require Elane Photography to either include photographs of same-sex couples in its advertisements or display them in its studio. However, if Elane *619Photography offers its services to the public, the NMHRA requires Elane Photography to provide those same services to clients who are members of a protected class under the NMHRA.

b. Observers are unlikely to believe that Elane Photography’s photographs reflect the views of either its owners or its employees

Elane Photography also argues that if it is compelled to photograph same-sex weddings, observers will believe that it and its owners approve of same-sex marriage. The United States Supreme Court incorporates the question of perceived endorsement into its analysis in cases that involve compulsion to host or accommodate third-party speech. See, e.g., Hurley, 515 U.S. at 577 (“Without deciding on the precise significance of the likelihood of misattribution, it nonetheless becomes clear that in the context of an expressive parade . . . the parade’s overall message is distilled from the individual presentations along the way, and each unit’s expression is perceived by spectators as part of the whole.”). The Hurley Court observed that admitting GLIB or any other organization into a parade would likely be perceived as a message from the parade organizers “that [GLIB’s] message was worthy of presentation and quite possibly of support as well.” Id. at 575. Therefore, the Court further observed that the government’s forced inclusion of GLIB compromised the parade organizer’s “right to autonomy over [its] message.” Id. at 576.

In contrast to Pacific Gas and Tornillo, the United States Supreme Court has not found compelled speech violations where the government has not explicitly required a publisher to disseminate opposing points of view and where observers are unlikely to mistake a person’s compliance with the law for endorsement of third-party messages, as in Hurley. In Rumsfeld, the United States Supreme Court rejected not only the law schools’ argument that they were forced to speak the government’s message, but also their argument that they were required to host the recruiters’ speech in such a way that violated compelled speech principles. 547 U.S. at 64-65 (“[The law schools’] accommodation of a military recruiter’s message is not compelled speech because the accommodation does not sufficiently interfere with any message of the school.”). The law schools in Rumsfeld worried that “treating] military and nonmilitary recruiters alike . . . could be viewed as sending the message that they see nothing wrong with the military’s policies [regarding gays in the military], when they do.” Id. The Rumsfeld Court held that students “can appreciate the difference between speech a school sponsors and speech the school permits because legally required to do so,” and that the law schools were free to express their disagreement with the military’s policy. Id. at 65.

Rumsfeld drew on earlier cases that had considered whether observers would conflate the speech of third parties with the opinions of the parties to the suit. In PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 76-78 (1980), a California shopping center was sued under a California constitutional provision that required privately owned shopping centers to allow individuals to engage in expressive activities on their premises. The shopping center argued that the state could not constitutionally compel it “to participate in the dissemination of an ideological message.” Id. at 86-87. The United States Supreme Court rejected the argument, id. at 88, holding that because the *620shopping center was a business establishment that was open to the public, “[t]he views expressed by members of the public in passing out pamphlets or seeking signatures for a petition . . . will not likely be identified with those of the owner.” Id. at 87. The Court also noted that the government had not dictated any particular message or engaged in viewpoint discrimination and that the shopping center could disavow the third-party messages by posting its own signs. Id. “Such signs, for example, could disclaim any sponsorship of the message and could explain that the persons are communicating their own messages by virtue of state law.” Id.

Elane Photography makes an argument very similar to one rejected by the Rumsfeld Court: by treating customers alike, regardless of whether they are having same-sex or opposite-sex weddings, Elane Photography is concerned that it will send the message that it sees nothing wrong with same-sex marriage. Reasonable observers are unlikely to interpret Elane Photography’s photographs as an endorsement of the photographed events. It is well known to the public that wedding photographers are hired by paying customers and that a photographer may not share the happy couple’s views on issues ranging from the minor (the color scheme, the hors d’oeuvres) to the decidedly major (the religious service, the choice of bride or groom). As in Rumsfeld and PruneYard, Elane Photography is free to disavow, implicitly or explicitly, any messages that it believes the photographs convey. We note that after Rumsfeld, many law schools published open letters expressing their continued opposition to military policies and military recruitment on campus. See, e.g., Dean’s Letter Regarding Military Recruiting on Campus & Faculty Letter Regarding Military Recruitment, Columbia Law School, http ://web. law. co lumb ia.edu/careers/military -recruiting-on-campus (last visited Aug. 9, 2013); Military Recruitment Policy, University of Dayton School of Law, http://www.udayton.edu/law/career_services/ military_recruitment_policy.php (last visited Aug. 9, 2013); Employer Recruiting Policies and Guidelines, Harvard Law School, http ://w ww. law .harvard, edu/current/careers/ ocs/employers/recruiting-policiesemployers/index.html#Non-D iscrimination (last visited Aug. 9, 2013). Elane Photography and its owners likewise retain their First Amendment rights to express their religious and political beliefs. They may, for example, post a disclaimer on their website or in their studio advertising that they oppose same-sex marriage but that they comply with applicable antidiscrimination laws.

c. Elane Photography’s allocation of its work time does not raise First Amendment concerns

Elane Photography next argues that when its employees spend time taking and editing photographs of same-sex weddings, they have less time to spend doing their preferred work of photographing opp osite-sex weddings. Therefore, by Elane Photography’s reasoning, the state has interfered with Elane Photography’s message, just as it did in Pacific Gas and Tornillo. In Tornillo, the newspaper had limited space to print its stories, and printing replies by politicians took up space in which the newspaper could have published other material. 418 U.S. at 256-57. Similarly, the utility in Pacific Gas was required to share the space inside its billing envelopes; when a third party used the space, the utility could not distribute its own newsletter without paying additional postage. 475 U.S. at 5-6 (plurality opinion). The instant case is different because Elane *621Photography does not produce a publication whose limited space has been taken over by the government.

, Instead, Elane Photography’s complaint is based on its staffs limited time. Elane Photography argues that if it accepts same-sex couples as clients, its employees must “spend a day shooting pictures and three to four weeks selecting, editing, and arranging images” of the clients’ weddings, when they would prefer to spend this time working on images of heterosexual weddings. Therefore, it argues, the NMHRA interferes with Elane Photography’s own speech.

We disagree because the allocation of work time is a matter of personal preference, not compelled speech, and it is not constitutionally protected. See Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 261 (1964) (rejecting Thirteenth Amendment challenge to law requiring motel to serve African-American guests). By their nature, laws prohibiting discrimination in public accommodations require businesses and their employees to spend time and energy serving customers whom they might prefer not to serve. See Hurley, 515 U.S. at 578 (describing common law public accommodation rules as guaranteeing that individuals “will not be turned away merely on the proprietor’s exercise of personal preference”). These laws apply even when the businesses provide skillful or physically intimate services. See Bragdon v. Abbott, 524 U.S. 624, 628-29 (1998) (applying public accommodations provisions of the Americans with Disabilities Act to dental practice). This is the purpose of antidiscrimination laws: they force businesses to treat customers alike, regardless of their race, religion, or other protected status. These laws are necessary precisely because some businesses would otherwise refuse to work with certain customers whom the laws protect.

Antidiscrimination laws have been consistently upheld as constitutional. See, e.g., Hurley, 515 U.S. at 572 (“[Public accommodations laws] do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments.”); Heart of Atlanta Motel, 379 U.S. at 242-44, 258, 261 (sustaining Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against challenges based on the Commerce Clause and the Fifth and Thirteenth Amendments). Elane Photography’s desire to work with heterosexual rather than homosexual couples does not give it license to violate the NMHRA.

3. There is no exemption from antidiscrimination laws for creative or expressive professions

There are no cases from either New Mexico jurisprudence or that of the United States Supreme Court that would compel a conclusion that the NMHRA violates Elane Photography’s freedom of speech because it is engaged in a creative and expressive profession. We decline to draw the line between “creative” or “expressive” professions and all others. While individuals in such professions undoubtedly engage in speech, and sometimes even create speech for others as part of their services, there is no precedent to suggest that First Amendment protections allow such individuals or businesses to violate antidiscrimination laws. The wedding industry in particular employs a variety of professionals who offer their services to the public and whose work involves significant skills and creativity. For example, a flower shop is not intuitively “expressive,” but florists use artistic skills *622and training to design and construct floral displays. Bakeries also offer services for hire, and wedding cakes are famously intricate and artistic. Courts cannot be in the business of deciding which businesses are sufficiently artistic to warrant exemptions from antidiscrimination laws. These suggestions are not idle hypotheticals: we take judicial notice of a variety of situations in which florists, bakeries, and other wedding vendors have refused to serve same-sex couples. See, e.g., Lee Moran, Baker refuses to make wedding cake for lesbian couple, N.Y. Daily News (Feb. 4, 2013), http://www.nydailynews. com/news/national/baker-refuses-wedding-cake-lesbian- couple-article-1.1254776; Annette Cary, Arlene’s Flowers in Richland sued by gay couple, Tri-City Herald (Apr. 18, 2013), http://www.tri-cityherald.com/ 2013/04/18/23 61691/arlenes-flowers-in-ric hland-sued.html (quoting a florist as objecting to “using her time and artistic talent to support an event . . . that she believes is wrong” (emphasis added)); see also Cervelli v. Aloha Bed & Breakfast, Civ. No. 11-1-3103-12 ECN, Order (Haw. Circ. Court 1st Cir. Apr. 15, 2013) www.lambdalegal.org/ sites/default/files/20 1 3-04-1 5 _cervelli_order.pdf (finding that a bed and breakfast violated Hawaii’s public accommodation law when it refused service to a same-sex couple and granting partial summary judgment for declaratory and injunctive relief).

We are persuaded by cases suggesting that the First Amendment does not exempt creative or expressive businesses from antidiscrimination laws. In Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 71-73 (1984), the United States Supreme Court reversed the dismissal of a Title VII employment discrimination complaint against the law firm of King & Spalding. In doing so, the Court rejected the firm’s argument that by applying antidiscrimination laws to the firm’s selection of its partners, the government “would infringe [First Amendment] constitutional rights of expression or association.” Id. at 78. The Couit held that “[i]nvidious private discrimination may be characterized as a form of exercising freedom of association protected by the First Amendment, but it has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections.” Id. (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Legal work unquestionably involves creative and expressive skill and effort, but antidiscrimination laws still govern how a law firm runs its business.

Elane Photography attempts to distinguish King & Spalding by arguing that the type of compelled-speech claim Elane Photography advances should apply only to public accommodations law because such an exemption “would protect a firm’s decision not to advocate an argument that its partners cannot in good conscience advance.” However, this decision would already be protected under New Mexico law. The NMHRA does not prohibit a law firm, even one that is a public accommodation, from turning away clients with whose views the firm disagrees or with whom it simply does not wish to work. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibited grounds do not include ideology or personal dislike). What the NMHRA forbids, and what Elane Photography’s proposed exception would allow, is for a law firm to turn away a client because the firm finds the client offensive on the basis of a protected classification. Accepting Elane Photography’s argument would exempt from antidiscrimination laws any business that provided a creative or expressive service. *623Such an exemption would not be limited to religious objections or to sexual orientation discrimination; it would allow any business in a creative or expressive field to refuse service on any protected basis, including race, national origin, religion, sex, or disability.

Elane Photography also suggests that enforcing the NMHRA against it would mean that an African-American photographer could not legally refuse to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. This hypothetical suffers from the reality that political views and political group membership, including membership in the Klan, are not protected categories under the NMHRA. See § 28-1-7(F) (prohibiting public accommodation discrimination based on “race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, spousal affiliation or physical or mental handicap”). Therefore, an African-American could decline to photograph a Ku Klux Klan rally. However, the point is well-taken when the roles in the hypothetical are reversed — a Ku Klux Klan member who operates a photography business as a public accommodation would be compelled to photograph an African-American under the NMHRA. This result is required by the NMHRA, which seeks to promote equal rights and access to public accommodations by prohibiting discrimination based on certain specified protected classifications.

However, adoption of Elane Photography’s argument would allow a photographer who was a Klan member to refuse to photograph an African-American customer’s wedding, graduation, newborn child, or other event if the photographer felt that the photographs would cast African-Americans in a positive light or be interpreted as the photographer’s endorsement of African-Americans. A holding that the First Amendment mandates an exception to public accommodations laws for commercial photographers would license commercial photographers to freely discriminate against any protected class on the basis that the photographer was only exercising his or her right not to express a viewpoint with which he or she disagrees. Such a holding would undermine all of the protections provided by antidiscrimination laws.

In short, we conclude that the NMHRA’s prohibition on sexual-orientation discrimination does not violate Elane Photography’s First Amendment right to refrain from speaking. The government has not required Elane Photography to promote the government’s message, nor has the government required Elane Photography to facilitate third parties’ messages, except to the extent that Elane Photography already facilitates third parties’ messages, for hire, as part of the services that it offers as a for-profit public accommodation. Even if the services it offers are creative or expressive, Elane Photography must offer its services to customers without regard for the customers’ race, sex, sexual orientation, or other protected classification.

B. THE NMHRA DOES NOT VIOLATE ELANE PHOTOGRAPHY’S FIRST AMENDMENT FREE EXERCISE RIGHTS

Elane Photography argues that enforcement of the NMHRA against it for refusing to photograph Willock’s wedding violates its First Amendment right to freely exercise its religion. See U.S. Const, amend. I (Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion).

*624It is an open question whether Elane Photography, which is a limited liability company rather than a natural person, has First Amendment free exercise rights. Several federal courts have recently addressed this question with differing outcomes. Compare, e.g., Conestoga Wood Specialties Corp. v. Sec'y of U.S. Dep’t of Health & Human Servs., 724 F.3d 377, 381 (3d Cir. July 26, 2013) (“[W]e conclude that for-profit, secular corporations cannot engage in religious exercise . . . .”), with Grote v. Sebelius, 708 F.3d 850, 854 (7th Cir. 2013) (“[T]he [plaintiffs’] use of the corporate form is not dispositive of the [free exercise] claim.”). However, it is not necessary for this Court to address whether Elane Photography has a constitutionally protected right to exercise its religion. Assuming that Elane Photography has such rights, they are not offended by enforcement of the NMHRA.

Under established law, “the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).” Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).3 In order to state a valid First Amendment free exercise claim, a party must show either (a) that the law in question is not a “neutral law of general applicability,” id. (internal quotation marks and citation omitted) or (b) that the challenge implicates both the Free Exercise Clause and an independent constitutional protection, id. at 881, or possibly (c) that the law operates “in a context that len[ds] itself to individualized government assessment of the reasons for the relevant conduct.” Id. at 884. Elane Photography does not claim that the individualized assessment situation is applicable to the present case. We address its claims under the other two categories below.

1. The NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability

The United States Supreme Court elaborated on the rule concerning “law that is neutral and of general applicability” in Church of the Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 531, 546 (1993). A law is not neutral “if [its] object . . . is to infringe upon or restrict practices because of their religious motivation.” Id. at 533. It is not generally applicable if it “impose[s] burdens only on conduct motivated by religious belief’ while permitting exceptions for secular conduct or for favored religions. Id. at 543. These inquiries are related, id. at 531; the Court observed that improper intent could be inferred if the law was a “ ‘religious gerrymander’ ” that burdened religion but exempted similar secular activity. Id. at 534-35. If a law is neither neutral nor generally applicable, it “must be justified by a compelling governmental interest and must be narrowly tailored to advance that interest.” Id. at 531-32; see also id. at 546 (“The compelling interest standard that we apply once a law fails to meet the Smith requirements is not water[ed] . . . down but *625really means what it says.” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)).

In Lukumi Babalu Aye, the city of Hialeah had passed several ordinances that prohibited religious sacrifice of animals but exempted secular slaughterhouses, kosher slaughterhouses, hunting, fishing, euthanasia of unwanted animals, and extermination of pests. Id. at 526-28, 536, 543-44. The Court held that this was a “religious gerrymander,” id. at 535, the result of which was “that few if any killings of animals [were] prohibited other than Santería sacrifice,” id. at 536. The Court concluded that “[t]he ordinances had as their object the suppression of religion” and were therefore nonneutral. Id. at 542. The Court then examined whether the ordinances were generally applicable and whether the government was selectively burdening only religiously motivated conduct. Id. at 542-43. The Court did not precisely define the standard for assessing general applicability, but it did observe that the Hialeah ordinances were grossly under-inclusive with respect to the laws’ stated goals, id. at 543-45, and it concluded that the laws burdened “only . . . conduct motivated by religious belief.” Id. at 545. The Court applied strict scrutiny to the ordinances and found them unconstitutional. Id. at 546-47.

Elane Photography argues that the NMHRA is not generally applicable and that this Court therefore should apply strict scrutiny to the application of the NMHRA to Elane Photography. Elane Photography identifies several exemptions from the antidiscrimination provisions of the NMHRA and argues that these exemptions make it not generally applicable. Specifically, Elane Photography points to Section 28-1-9(A)(1), which exempts sales or rentals of single-family homes if the owner does not own more than three houses,4 and Section 28-1-9(D), which exempts owners who live in small multi-family dwellings and rent out the other units. Elane Photography argues that these exemptions, like those in Lukumi Babalu Aye, “impermissibly prefer the secular to the religious.”

This is a misreading of Section 28-1 - 9. Unlike the exemptions in Lukumi Babalu Aye, the exemptions in Section 28-l-9(A) and (D) apply equally to religious and secular conduct. Neither subsection discusses motivation; homeowners who meet the criteria of Section 28-1 -9(A) and (D) are permitted to discriminate regardless of whether they do so on religious or nonreligious grounds. Therefore, the NMHRA does not target only religiously motivated discrimination, and these exemptions do not prevent the NMHRA from being generally applicable. These exemptions also do not indicate any animus toward religion by the Legislature that might render the law nonneutral; similar exemptions commonly appear in housing discrimination laws, including the federal Fair Housing Act. See 42 U.S.C. § 3603(b)(1) & (2) (2012) (exempting from compliance “any single-family house sold or rented by an owner,” provided such “owner does not own more than three such . . . houses” and subject to additional limitations, and also exempting “rooms or units in dwellings containing living quarters occupied or intended to be occupied by no more than four families living independently of each other, if the owner actually maintains and occupies one of such living quarters as his [or her] residence”).

*626Elane Photography also argues that the exemptions to the NMHRA for religious organizations undercut the purpose of the statute. In particular, Elane Photography highlights Section 28-1-9(B)and(C), which in its reading permits religious organizations to “decline same-sex couples as customers.”

Once again, Elane Photography’s interpretation rests on a distorted reading of the statute. Section 28-1-9(B) allows religious organizations to “limit}] admission to or giv[e] preference to persons of the same religion or denomination or [to make] selections of buyers, lessees or tenants” that promote the organization’s religious principles. In the context of “buyers, lessees or tenants,” “buyers” clearly refers to purchasers of real estate rather than retail customers. Id. Subsection (C) exempts religious organizations from provisions of the NMHRA governing sexual orientation and gender identity, but only regarding “employment or renting.” If a religious organization sold goods or services to the general public, neither subsection would allow the organization to turn away same-sex couples while catering to opposite-sex couples of all faiths. Subsection (B) permits religious organizations to serve only or primarily people of their own faith, as well as to discriminate in certain limited real estate transactions; Subsection (C) applies only to employment and, again, to real estate.

In other words, neither of the religious exemptions in Section 28-1-9 would permit a religious organization to take the actions that Elane Photography did in this case. Furthermore, these exemptions do not prevent the NMHRA from being generally applicable. Exemptions for religious organizations are common in a wide variety of laws, and they reflect the attempts of the Legislature to respect free exercise rights by reducing legal burdens on religion. See, e.g., Hobbie v. Unemp’t Appeals Comm'n of Fla., 480 U.S. 136, 144-45 (1987) (observing that the United States Supreme Court “has long recognized that the government may (and sometimes must) accommodate religious practices” and listing examples). Such exemptions are generally permissible, see Corp. of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Amos, 483 U.S. 327, 329-30 (1987) (upholding religious exemption to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against an Establishment Clause challenge), and in some situations they may be constitutionally mandated, see Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church & Sch. v. EEOC,___U.S.___,___, 132 S. Ct. 694, 705-06 (2012) (holding that the First Amendment precludes the application of employment discrimination laws to disputes between religious organizations and their ministers).

The exemptions in the NMHRA are ordinary exemptions for religious organizations and for certain limited employment and real-estate transactions. The exemptions do not prefer secular conduct over religious conduct or evince any hostility toward religion. We hold that the NMHRA is a neutral law of general applicability, and as such it does not offend the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment.

2. Elane Photography has not adequately briefed its hybrid rights claim

In Smith, the United States Supreme Court left open the possibility that a neutral law of general applicability could nevertheless be unconstitutional if the law infringed both free exercise rights and an independent constitutional protection. 494 U.S. at 881. The Court recognized that in pre-Smith cases, *627it had sometimes applied more rigorous scrutiny to neutral, generally applicable laws. Id. The Court distinguished those cases by characterizing them not as simple free exercise cases, but as “hybrid situation^],” id. at 882, in which the free exercise claims were raised “in conjunction with other constitutional protections, such as freedom of speech and of the press.” Id. at 881. Elane Photography mentions that because it raised both a free exercise claim and a compelled-speech claim, it has made a hybrid-rights claim under which the NMHRA should receive strict scrutiny.

This Court requires that the parties adequately brief all appellate issues to include an argument, the standard of review, and citations to authorities for each issue presented. In re Adoption of Doe, 1984-NMSC-024, ¶ 2, 100 N.M. 764, 676 P.2d 1329 (“[T]o present an issue on appeal for review, an appellant must submit argument and authority as required by rule.” (emphasis omitted)). “We will not review unclear arguments, or guess at what [a party’s] arguments might be.” Headley v. Morgan Mgmt. Corp., 2005-NMCA-045, ¶ 15, 137 N.M. 339, 110 P.3d 1076. To rule on an inadequately briefed issue, this Court would have to develop the arguments itself, effectively performing the parties’ work for them. See State v. Clifford, 1994-NMSC-048, ¶ 19, 117 N.M. 508, 873 P.2d 254 (“We remind counsel that we are not required to do their research .. ..”). This creates a strain on judicial resources and a substantial risk of error. It is of no benefit either to the parties or to future litigants for this Court to promulgate case law based on our own speculation rather than the parties’ carefully considered arguments.

{71} Elane Photography devotes a single three-sentence paragraph to its hybrid-rights claim, stating that a hybrid claim exists because it has raised a compelled-speech claim and a free exercise claim under the NMRFRA. However, as discussed in this opinion, neither of these claims is independently viable, and Elane Photography offers no analysis to explain why the two claims together should be greater than the sum of their parts. Elane Photography cites two cases, Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277 (10th Cir. 2004), and Health Services Division, Health & Environment Dep’t v. Temple Baptist Church, 1991-NMCA-055, 112 N.M. 262, 814 P.2d 130, but provides no explanation of how or why we should apply these precedents to the facts of this case. As a matter of New Mexico law, Elane Photography’s briefing of its hybrid-rights claim is inadequate to permit us to review the issue. For this reason, we do not consider its hybrid-rights argument.

III. ENFORCEMENT OF THE NMHRA DOES NOT VIOLATE THE NMRFRA BECAUSE THE NMRFRA IS NOT APPLICABLE IN A SUIT BETWEEN PRIVATE PARTIES

Finally, Elane Photography argues that the Commission’s enforcement of the NMHRA against it violates the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The NMRFRA provides:

A government agency shall not restrict a person’s free exercise of religion unless:

A. the restriction is in the form of a rule of general applicability and does not directly discriminate against religion or among religions; and

B. the application of the *628restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.

Section 28-22-3. “Free exercise of religion” is defined as “an act or a refusal to act that is substantially motivated by religious belief.” Section 28-22-2(A).

Willock argues, and the Court of Appeals held, that the NMRFRA did not protect Elane Photography’s refusal to photograph Willock’s wedding, even though the refusal was religiously motivated, because the NMRFRA “was not meant to apply in suits between private litigants.” Elane Photography, 2012-NMCA-086, ¶ 46. There is no other case law on this point in New Mexico; the Court of Appeals relied on federal cases interpreting the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Id. ¶¶ 46-47.

The NMRFRA states that “[a] person whose free exercise of religion has been restricted by a violation of the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act may assert that violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government agency.” Section 28-22-4(A) (emphasis added). Elane Photography argues that the phrase “against a government agency” modifies “appropriate relief,” rather than “a judicial proceeding.” In other words, Elane Photography argues that although the relief available is limited, the NMRFRA can be invoked even when the government is not a party.

However, the statute is violated only if a “government agency” restricts a person’s free exercise of religion. Section 28-22-3. A “government agency” includes “the state or any of its political subdivisions, institutions, departments, agencies, commissions, committees, boards, councils, bureaus or authorities.” Section 28-22-2(B). The list of government agencies does not include the Legislature or the courts. It could be expected that the Legislature would have included itself and the courts in Section 28-22-2(B) if it meant the NMRFRA to apply in common-law disputes or private enforcement actions. Instead, the examples of government agencies are exclusively administrative or executive entities.

Moreover, the structure of the NMRFRA as a whole suggests that the Legislature contemplated that the statute would apply only to legal actions in which the government was a party. The only relief authorized by the statute is “injunctive or declaratory relief against a government agency,” § 28-22-4(A)(1), or “damages pursuant to the Tort Claims Act” with attorneys’ fees and costs, § 28-22-4(A)(2). Nowhere does the NMRFRA authorize damages or injunctive relief against a nongovernmental party.

Elane Photography argues that because Willock’s suit was adjudicated by the New Mexico Human Rights Commission, which is presumably a “government agency” for purposes of Section 28-22-2(B), the Commission’s decision against it qualifies as a restriction of its free exercise of religion. However, Elane Photography appealed the Commission’s determination to aNew Mexico district court for a trial de novo pursuant to Section 28-1-13(A). The instant appeal concerns the district court’s grant of summary judgment for Willock; the Commission is not a party to this case, and its order no longer has any legal effect. See § 39-3-1 (stating that appeals to the district court for trials de novo *629“shall be tried anew ... as if no trial had been had below”). Willock argues, and we agree, that the Commission acted merely as an administrative tribunal to decide the dispute between Elane Photography and herself. The government’s adjudication of disputes between private parties does not constitute government restriction of a party’s free exercise rights for purposes of the NMRFRA.

Forthe reasons stated above, we hold that as a matter of New Mexico law, the New Mexico Religious Freedom Restoration Act is inapplicable to disputes in which a government agency is not a party.

CONCLUSION

Elane Photography’s refusal to serve Vanessa Willock violated the New Mexico Human Rights Act, which prohibits a public accommodation from refusing to offer its services to a person based on that person’s sexual orientation. Enforcing the NMHRA against Elane Photography does not violate the Free Speech or the Free Exercise clause of the First Amendment or the NMRFRA. For these reasons, we affirm the grant of summary judgment in Willock’s favor.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

EDWARD L. CHÁVEZ, Justice

WE CONCUR:

PETRA JIMENEZ MAES, Chief Justice

CHARLES W. DANIELS, Justice

BARBARA J. VIGIL, Justice

RICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice, specially concurring

BOSSON, Justice,

specially concurring.

In 1943 during the darkest days of World War II, the State of West Virginia required students to salute the American flag and decreed that refusal to salute would “be regarded an Act of insubordination” which could lead to expulsion for the student and criminal action against the parent. W. Va. State Bd. of Educ. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 626-29 (1943). Some students refused to salute, believing as Jehovah’s Witnesses “that the obligation imposed by law of God is superior to that of laws enacted by temporal government.” Id. at 629. They looked for authority in the Bible, Book of Exodus, Chapter 20, verses 4 and 5: “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Jehovah’s Witnesses considered “the flag is an ‘image’ within this command,” which they were bound by God not to salute. Id.

In a ringing endorsement of the First Amendment, the United States Supreme Court struck down the West Virginia statute, noting the irony of the state’s position: “To sustain the compulsory flag salute we are required to say that a Bill of Rights which guards the individual’s right to speak his own mind, left it open to public authorities to compel him to utter what is not in his mind.” Id. at 634. And again, “[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein.” Id. at 642. In his concurrence, Justice Black had this to add:

*630The Jehovah’s Witnesses, without any desire to show disrespect for either the flag or the country, interpret the Bible as commanding, at the risk of God’s displeasure, that they not go through the form of a pledge of allegiance to any flag. The devoutness of their belief is evidenced by their willingness to suffer persecution and punishment, rather than make the pledge.

Id. at 643 (Black, J., concurring). Considering the times, the Barnette opinion stands today as an act of the utmost courage; it represents one of the Court’s finest moments.

Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin see themselves in much the same position as the students in Barnette. As devout, practicing Christians, they believe, as a matter of faith, that certain commands of the Bible are not left open to secular interpretation; they are meant to be obeyed. Among those commands, according to the Huguenins, is an injunction against same-sex marriage. On the record before us, no one has questioned the Huguenin’s devoutness or their sincerity; their religious convictions deserve our respect. In the words of their legal counsel, the Huguenins “believed that creating photographs telling the story of that event [a same-sex wedding] would express a message contrary to their sincerely held beliefs, and that doing so would disobey God.” If honoring same-sex marriage would so conflict with their fundamental religious tenets, no less than the Jehovah’s W itnesses in Barnette, how then, they ask, can the State of New Mexico compel them to “disobey God” in this case? How indeed?

Twenty-four years later, during the zenith of the Civil Rights era, the Supreme Court provided a partial answer. In Loving v. Virginia, the State of Virginia, like sixteen similarly situated states with miscegenation laws, prohibited marriage between the white and black races, making it a crime punishable by imprisonment. 388 U.S. 1, 4, 6 (1967). Such laws arose as an incident of slavery and were common in Virginia and elsewhere since early times. Id. at 6. The Lovings, an interracial couple, had been lawfully married elsewhere and wanted to live openly as husband and wife in Virginia. Id. at 2-3. For their honesty, they were prosecuted and convicted; their prison sentences were suspended on condition that they leave Virginia and not return for 25 years. Id. at 3. The Virginia trial judge, in justifying the convictions, drew strength from his view of the Bible:

“Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with this arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.”

Id. at 3. Whatever opinion one might have of the trial judge’s religious views, which mirrored those of millions of Americans of the time, no one questioned his sincerity either or his religious conviction. In affirming the Lovings’ convictions, Virginia’s highest court observed the religious, cultural, historical, and moral roots that justified miscegenation laws. See id.

The Supreme Court struck down Virginia’s miscegenation statute. Id. at 11-12. Observing that “[t]he freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital *631personal rights essential in the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men,” the Court held categorically that “[t]here can be no doubt that restricting the freedom to marry solely because of racial classifications violates the central meaning of the Equal Protection Clause.” Id. at 12. State laws, even those religiously inspired, may not discriminate invidiously on the basis of race.

There is a lesson here. In a constitutional form of government, personal, religious, and moral beliefs, when acted upon to the detriment of someone else’s rights, have constitutional limits. One is free to believe, think, and speak as one’s conscience, or God, dictates. But when actions, even religiously inspired, conflict with other constitutionally protected rights — in Loving the right to be free from invidious racial discrimination — then there must be some accommodation. Recall that Barnette was all about the students; their exercise of First Amendment rights did not infringe upon anyone else. The Huguenins cannot make that claim. Their refusal to do business with the same-sex couple in this case, no matter how religiously inspired, was an affront to the legal rights of that couple, the right granted them under New Mexico law to engage in the commercial marketplace free from discrimination.

But of course, the Huguenins are not trying to prohibit anyone from marrying. They only want to be left alone to conduct their photography business in a manner consistent with their moral convictions. In their view, they seek only the freedom not to endorse someone else’s lifestyle. Loving, therefore, does not completely answer the question the Huguenins pose. To complete the circle, we turn to our third case.

Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, upheld the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, a milestone enactment which, among other achievements, declared invidious discrimination unlawful, not just by the state but by private citizens, when providing goods and services in the sphere of public accommodations. 379 U.S. 241, 246, 261-62 (1964). The Act declared: “‘All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations ofany place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion or national origin.’” Id. at 247. A watershed achievement, the Act vindicated nearly a century of frustrated effort to fulfill the promise of the Fourteenth Amendment, to end not only slavery but all of its traces as well. See id. at 244-46. And ending second-class citizenship, being denied a seat in a restaurant or a room in an inn — purely on the basis of one’s race or religion — was a goal that drove the passage of the Act. See id. at 252-53.

By the time of the success of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, many states had already passed their own public accommodation laws. See id. at 358-59 (noting that thirty-two states already had public accommodation laws); see also Lisa Gabrielle & Annette K. Sanderson, Discrimination in Access to Public Places: A Survey of State and Federal Public Accommodations Laws, 7 N.Y.U. Rev. L. & Soc. Change 215, 240 (1978) (recognizing that “the existence of numerous state laws facilitated Congress’ acceptance of Title II” of the Civil Rights Act). Today, many states have Human Rights Acts similar to New Mexico’s. See, e.g., 775 Ill. Comp. Stat. Ann. 5/1-102(A) (2010); Iowa Code Ann. § 216.7 (2007); Md. Code Ann., State Government § 20-304 (2009); Nev. Rev. Stat. Ann. § *632651.070 (2011). Public accommodations have been expanded to preclude invidious discrimination in most every public business, including the Huguenin’s photography business. Prohibited classifications have been enlarged from the historical classes — race, religion, gender, national origin — to include sexual orientation. See, e.g., Douglas NeJaime, Marriage Inequality: Same-Sex Relationships, Religious Exemptions, and the Production of Sexual Orientation Discrimination, 100 Cal. L. Rev. 1169, 1190 (2012) (“Twenty-one states and the District of Columbia cover sexual orientation in their antidiscrimination laws governing employment, housing, and public accommodations.”). The New Mexico Legislature has made it clear that to discriminate in business on the basis of sexual orientation is just as intolerable as discrimination directed toward race, color, national origin, or religion. SeeNMSA 1978, § 28-1-7(F) (2004). The Huguenins today can no more turn away customers on the basis of sexual orientation — photographing a same-sex marriage ceremony — than they could refuse to photograph African-Americans or Muslims.

All of which, I assume, is little comfort to the Huguenins, who now are compelled by law to compromise the very religious beliefs that inspire their lives. Though the rule of law requires it, the result is sobering. It will no doubt leave a tangible mark on the Huguenins and others of similar views.

On a larger scale, this case provokes reflection on what this nation is all about, its promise of fairness, liberty, equality of opportunity, and justice. At its heart, this case teaches that at some point in our lives all of us must compromise, if only a little, to accommodate the contrasting values of others. A multicultural, pluralistic society, one of our nation’s strengths, demands no less. The Huguenins are free to think, to say, to believe, as they wish; they may pray to the God of their choice and follow those commandments in their personal lives wherever they lead. The Constitution protects the Huguenins in that respect and much more. But there is a price, one that we all have to pay somewhere in our civic life.

In the smaller, more focused world of the marketplace, of commerce, of public accommodation, the Huguenins have to channel their conduct, not their beliefs, so as to leave space for other Americans who believe something different. That compromise is part of the glue that holds us together as a nation, the tolerance that lubricates the varied moving parts of us as a people. That sense of respect we owe others, whether or not we believe as they do, illuminates this country, setting it apart from the discord that afflicts much of the rest of the world. In short, I would say to the Huguenins, with the utmost respect: it is the price of citizenship. I therefore concur.

RICHARD C. BOSSON, Justice

Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.

In 2012 a same-sex couple visited Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado, to make inquiries about ordering a cake for their wedding reception. The shop's owner told the couple that he would not create a cake for their wedding because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriages-marriages the State of Colorado itself did not recognize at that time. The couple filed a charge with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission alleging discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation in violation of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act.

The Commission determined that the shop's actions violated the Act and ruled in the couple's favor. The Colorado state courts affirmed the ruling and its enforcement order, and this Court now must decide whether the Commission's order violated the Constitution.

The case presents difficult questions as to the proper reconciliation of at least two principles. The first is the authority of a State and its governmental entities to protect the rights and dignity of gay persons who are, or wish to be, married but who face discrimination when they seek goods or services. The second is the right of all persons to exercise fundamental freedoms under the First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment.

The freedoms asserted here are both the freedom of speech and the free exercise of religion. The free speech aspect of this case is difficult, for few persons who have seen a beautiful wedding cake might have thought of its creation as an exercise of protected speech. This is an instructive example, however, of the proposition that the application of constitutional freedoms in new contexts can deepen our understanding of their meaning.

One of the difficulties in this case is that the parties disagree as to the extent of the baker's refusal to provide service. If a baker refused to design a special cake with words or images celebrating the marriage-for instance, a cake showing words with religious meaning-that might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all. In defining whether a baker's creation can be protected, these details might make a difference.

The same difficulties arise in determining whether a baker has a valid free exercise claim. A baker's refusal to attend the wedding to ensure that the cake is cut the right way, or a refusal to put certain religious words or decorations on the cake, or even a refusal to sell a cake that has been baked for the public generally but includes certain religious words or symbols on it are just three examples of possibilities that seem all but endless.

Whatever the confluence of speech and free exercise principles might be in some cases, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's consideration of this case was inconsistent with the State's obligation of religious neutrality. The reason and motive for the baker's refusal were based on his sincere religious beliefs and convictions. The Court's precedents make clear that the baker, in his capacity as the owner of a *1724business serving the public, might have his right to the free exercise of religion limited by generally applicable laws. Still, the delicate question of when the free exercise of his religion must yield to an otherwise valid exercise of state power needed to be determined in an adjudication in which religious hostility on the part of the State itself would not be a factor in the balance the State sought to reach. That requirement, however, was not met here. When the Colorado Civil Rights Commission considered this case, it did not do so with the religious neutrality that the Constitution requires.

Given all these considerations, it is proper to hold that whatever the outcome of some future controversy involving facts similar to these, the Commission's actions here violated the Free Exercise Clause; and its order must be set aside.

I

A

Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd., is a bakery in Lakewood, Colorado, a suburb of Denver. The shop offers a variety of baked goods, ranging from everyday cookies and brownies to elaborate custom-designed cakes for birthday parties, weddings, and other events.

Jack Phillips is an expert baker who has owned and operated the shop for 24 years. Phillips is a devout Christian. He has explained that his "main goal in life is to be obedient to" Jesus Christ and Christ's "teachings in all aspects of his life." App. 148. And he seeks to "honor God through his work at Masterpiece Cakeshop." Ibid. One of Phillips' religious beliefs is that "God's intention for marriage from the beginning of history is that it is and should be the union of one man and one woman." Id., at 149. To Phillips, creating a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would be equivalent to participating in a celebration that is contrary to his own most deeply held beliefs.

Phillips met Charlie Craig and Dave Mullins when they entered his shop in the summer of 2012. Craig and Mullins were planning to marry. At that time, Colorado did not recognize same-sex marriages, so the couple planned to wed legally in Massachusetts and afterwards to host a reception for their family and friends in Denver. To prepare for their celebration, Craig and Mullins visited the shop and told Phillips that they were interested in ordering a cake for "our wedding." Id., at 152 (emphasis deleted). They did not mention the design of the cake they envisioned.

Phillips informed the couple that he does not "create" wedding cakes for same-sex weddings. Ibid. He explained, "I'll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same sex weddings." Ibid . The couple left the shop without further discussion.

The following day, Craig's mother, who had accompanied the couple to the cakeshop and been present for their interaction with Phillips, telephoned to ask Phillips why he had declined to serve her son. Phillips explained that he does not create wedding cakes for same-sex weddings because of his religious opposition to same-sex marriage, and also because Colorado (at that time) did not recognize same-sex marriages. Id., at 153. He later explained his belief that "to create a wedding cake for an event that celebrates something that directly goes against the teachings of the Bible, would have been a personal endorsement and participation in the ceremony and relationship that they were entering into." Ibid . (emphasis deleted).

B

For most of its history, Colorado has prohibited discrimination in places of public *1725accommodation. In 1885, less than a decade after Colorado achieved statehood, the General Assembly passed "An Act to Protect All Citizens in Their Civil Rights," which guaranteed "full and equal enjoyment" of certain public facilities to "all citizens," "regardless of race, color or previous condition of servitude." 1885 Colo. Sess. Laws pp. 132-133. A decade later, the General Assembly expanded the requirement to apply to "all other places of public accommodation." 1895 Colo. Sess. Laws ch. 61, p. 139.

Today, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) carries forward the state's tradition of prohibiting discrimination in places of public accommodation. Amended in 2007 and 2008 to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation as well as other protected characteristics, CADA in relevant part provides as follows:

"It is a discriminatory practice and unlawful for a person, directly or indirectly, to refuse, withhold from, or deny to an individual or a group, because of disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry, the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, or accommodations of a place of public accommodation." Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a) (2017).

The Act defines "public accommodation" broadly to include any "place of business engaged in any sales to the public and any place offering services ... to the public," but excludes "a church, synagogue, mosque, or other place that is principally used for religious purposes." § 24-34-601(1).

CADA establishes an administrative system for the resolution of discrimination claims. Complaints of discrimination in violation of CADA are addressed in the first instance by the Colorado Civil Rights Division. The Division investigates each claim; and if it finds probable cause that CADA has been violated, it will refer the matter to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. The Commission, in turn, decides whether to initiate a formal hearing before a state Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), who will hear evidence and argument before issuing a written decision. See §§ 24-34-306, 24-4-105(14). The decision of the ALJ may be appealed to the full Commission, a seven-member appointed body. The Commission holds a public hearing and deliberative session before voting on the case. If the Commission determines that the evidence proves a CADA violation, it may impose remedial measures as provided by statute. See § 24-34-306(9). Available remedies include, among other things, orders to cease-and-desist a discriminatory policy, to file regular compliance reports with the Commission, and "to take affirmative action, including the posting of notices setting forth the substantive rights of the public." § 24-34-605. Colorado law does not permit the Commission to assess money damages or fines. §§ 24-34-306(9), 24-34-605.

C

Craig and Mullins filed a discrimination complaint against Masterpiece Cakeshop and Phillips in September 2012, shortly after the couple's visit to the shop. App. 31. The complaint alleged that Craig and Mullins had been denied "full and equal service" at the bakery because of their sexual orientation, id., at 35, 48, and that it was Phillips' "standard business practice" not to provide cakes for same-sex weddings, id., at 43.

The Civil Rights Division opened an investigation. The investigator found that "on multiple occasions," Phillips "turned away potential customers on the basis of their sexual orientation, stating that he *1726could not create a cake for a same-sex wedding ceremony or reception" because his religious beliefs prohibited it and because the potential customers "were doing something illegal" at that time. Id., at 76. The investigation found that Phillips had declined to sell custom wedding cakes to about six other same-sex couples on this basis. Id., at 72. The investigator 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 celebration 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 sexual 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 compelling 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 ideological 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 Amendment. Citing this Court's precedent in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990), the ALJ determined that CADA is a "valid and neutral law of general applicability" and therefore that applying it to Phillips in this case did not violate the Free Exercise Clause. Id ., at 879, 110 S.Ct. 1595 ; App. to Pet. for Cert. 82a-83a. The ALJ thus ruled against Phillips and the cakeshop and in favor of Craig and Mullins on both constitutional claims.

The Commission affirmed the ALJ's decision in full. Id., at 57a. The Commission ordered Phillips to "cease and desist from discriminating against ... same-sex couples by refusing to sell them wedding cakes or any product [they] would sell to heterosexual couples." Ibid. It also ordered additional remedial measures, including "comprehensive staff training on the Public Accommodations section" of CADA "and changes to any and all company policies to comply with ... this Order." Id., at 58a. The Commission additionally required Phillips to prepare "quarterly compliance reports" for a period of two years documenting "the number of patrons denied service" and why, along with "a statement describing the remedial actions taken." Ibid.

Phillips appealed to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which affirmed the Commission's legal determinations and remedial *1727order. The court rejected the argument that the "Commission's order unconstitutionally compels" Phillips and the shop "to convey a celebratory message about same sex marriage." Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 370 P.3d 272, 283 (2015). The court also rejected the argument that the Commission's order violated the Free Exercise Clause. Relying on this Court's precedent in Smith, supra, at 879, 110 S.Ct. 1595, the court stated that the Free Exercise Clause "does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability" on the ground that following the law would interfere with religious practice or belief. 370 P.3d, at 289. The court concluded that requiring Phillips to comply with the statute did not violate his free exercise rights. The Colorado Supreme Court declined to hear the case.

Phillips sought review here, and this Court granted certiorari. 582 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2290, 198 L.Ed.2d 723 (2017). He now renews his claims under the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses of the First Amendment.

II

A

Our society has come to the recognition that gay persons and gay couples cannot be treated as social outcasts or as inferior in dignity and worth. For that reason the laws and the Constitution can, and in some instances must, protect them in the exercise of their civil rights. The exercise of their freedom on terms equal to others must be given great weight and respect by the courts. At the same time, the religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage are protected views and in some instances protected forms of expression. As this Court observed in Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015), "[t]he First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2607. Nevertheless, while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law. See Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U.S. 400, 402, n. 5, 88 S.Ct. 964, 19 L.Ed.2d 1263 (1968) (per curiam ); see also Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 572, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) ("Provisions like these are well within the State's usual power to enact when a legislature has reason to believe that a given group is the target of discrimination, and they do not, as a general matter, violate the First or Fourteenth Amendments").

When it comes to weddings, it can be assumed that a member of the clergy who objects to gay marriage on moral and religious grounds could not be compelled to perform the ceremony without denial of his or her right to the free exercise of religion. This refusal would be well understood in our constitutional order as an exercise of religion, an exercise that gay persons could recognize and accept without serious diminishment to their own dignity and worth. Yet if that exception were not confined, then a long list of persons who provide goods and services for marriages and weddings might refuse to do so for gay persons, thus resulting in a community-wide stigma inconsistent with the history and dynamics of civil rights laws that ensure equal access to goods, services, and public accommodations.

*1728It is unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public. And there are no doubt innumerable goods and services that no one could argue implicate the First Amendment. Petitioners conceded, moreover, that if a baker refused to sell any goods or any cakes for gay weddings, that would be a different matter and the State would have a strong case under this Court's precedents that this would be a denial of goods and services that went beyond any protected rights of a baker who offers goods and services to the general public and is subject to a neutrally applied and generally applicable public accommodations law. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-7, 10.

Phillips claims, however, that a narrower issue is presented. He argues that he had to use his artistic skills to make an expressive statement, a wedding endorsement in his own voice and of his own creation. As Phillips would see the case, this contention has a significant First Amendment speech component and implicates his deep and sincere religious beliefs. In this context the baker likely found it difficult to find a line where the customers' rights to goods and services became a demand for him to exercise the right of his own personal expression for their message, a message he could not express in a way consistent with his religious beliefs.

Phillips' dilemma was particularly understandable given the background of legal principles and administration of the law in Colorado at that time. His decision and his actions leading to the refusal of service all occurred in the year 2012. At that point, Colorado did not recognize the validity of gay marriages performed in its own State. See Colo. Const., Art. II, § 31 (2012); 370 P.3d, at 277. At the time of the events in question, this Court had not issued its decisions either in United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744, 133 S.Ct. 2675, 186 L.Ed.2d 808 (2013), or Obergefell . Since the State itself did not allow those marriages to be performed in Colorado, there is some force to the argument that the baker was not unreasonable in deeming it lawful to decline to take an action that he understood to be an expression of support for their validity when that expression was contrary to his sincerely held religious beliefs, at least insofar as his refusal was limited to refusing to create and express a message in support of gay marriage, even one planned to take place in another State.

At the time, state law also afforded storekeepers some latitude to decline to create specific messages the storekeeper considered offensive. Indeed, while enforcement proceedings against Phillips were ongoing, the Colorado Civil Rights Division itself endorsed this proposition in cases involving other bakers' creation of cakes, concluding on at least three occasions that a baker acted lawfully in declining to create cakes with decorations that demeaned gay persons or gay marriages. See Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd., Charge No. P20140071X (Mar. 24, 2015); Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X (Mar. 24, 2015); Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X (Mar. 24, 2015).

There were, to be sure, responses to these arguments that the State could make when it contended for a different result in seeking the enforcement of its generally applicable state regulations of businesses that serve the public. And any decision in favor of the baker would have to be sufficiently constrained, lest all purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons in *1729effect be allowed to put up signs saying "no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages," something that would impose a serious stigma on gay persons. But, nonetheless, Phillips was entitled to the neutral and respectful consideration of his claims in all the circumstances of the case.

B

The neutral and respectful consideration to which Phillips was entitled was compromised here, however. The Civil Rights Commission's treatment of his case has some elements of a clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs that motivated his objection.

That hostility surfaced at the Commission's formal, public hearings, as shown by the record. On May 30, 2014, the seven-member Commission convened publicly to consider Phillips' case. At several points during its meeting, commissioners endorsed 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's business community. One commissioner suggested that Phillips can believe "what he wants to believe," but cannot act on his religious beliefs "if he decides to do business in the state." Tr. 23. A few moments later, the commissioner restated the same position: "[I]f a businessman wants to do business in the state and he's got an issue with the-the law's impacting his personal belief system, he needs to look at being able to compromise." Id ., at 30. Standing alone, these statements are susceptible of different interpretations. On the one hand, they might mean simply that a business cannot refuse to provide services based on sexual orientation, regardless of the proprietor's personal views. On the other hand, they might be seen as inappropriate and dismissive comments showing lack of due consideration for Phillips' free exercise rights and the dilemma he faced. In view of the comments that followed, the latter seems the more likely.

On July 25, 2014, the Commission met again. This meeting, too, was conducted in public and on the record. On this occasion another commissioner made specific reference to the previous meeting's discussion but said far more to disparage Phillips' beliefs. The commissioner stated:

"I would also like to reiterate what we said in the hearing or the last meeting. Freedom of religion and religion has been used to justify all kinds of discrimination throughout history, whether it be slavery, whether it be the holocaust, whether it be-I mean, we-we can list hundreds of situations where freedom of religion has been used to justify discrimination. And to me it is one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use to-to use their religion to hurt others." Tr. 11-12.

To describe a man's faith as "one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use" is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical-something insubstantial and even insincere. The commissioner even went so far as to compare Phillips' invocation of his sincerely held religious beliefs to defenses of slavery and the Holocaust. This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's antidiscrimination law-a law that protects against discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.

The record shows no objection to these comments from other commissioners. And the later state-court ruling reviewing the Commission's decision did not mention *1730those comments, much less express concern with their content. Nor were the comments by the commissioners disavowed in the briefs filed in this Court. For these reasons, the Court cannot avoid the conclusion that these statements cast doubt on the fairness and impartiality of the Commission's adjudication of Phillips' case. Members of the Court have disagreed on the question whether statements made by lawmakers may properly be taken into account in determining whether a law intentionally discriminates on the basis of religion. See Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 540-542, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) ; id., at 558, 113 S.Ct. 2217 (Scalia, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). In this case, however, the remarks were made in a very different context-by an adjudicatory body deciding a particular case.

Another indication of hostility is the difference in treatment between Phillips' case and the cases of other bakers who objected to a requested cake on the basis of conscience and prevailed before the Commission.

As noted above, on at least three other occasions the Civil Rights Division considered the refusal of bakers to create cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text. Each time, the Division found that the baker acted lawfully in refusing service. It made these determinations because, in the words of the Division, the requested cake included "wording and images [the baker] deemed derogatory," Jack v. Gateaux, Ltd., Charge No. P20140071X, at 4; featured "language and images [the baker] deemed hateful," Jack v. Le Bakery Sensual, Inc., Charge No. P20140070X, at 4; or displayed a message the baker "deemed as discriminatory, Jack v. Azucar Bakery, Charge No. P20140069X, at 4.

The treatment of the conscience-based objections at issue in these three cases contrasts with the Commission's treatment of Phillips' objection. The Commission ruled against Phillips in part on the theory that any message the requested wedding cake would carry would be attributed to the customer, not to the baker. Yet the Division did not address this point in any of the other cases with respect to the cakes depicting anti-gay marriage symbolism. Additionally, the Division found no violation of CADA in the other cases in part because each bakery was willing to sell other products, including those depicting Christian themes, to the prospective customers. But the Commission dismissed Phillips' willingness to sell "birthday cakes, shower cakes, [and] cookies and brownies," App. 152, to gay and lesbian customers as irrelevant. The treatment of the other cases and Phillips' case could reasonably be interpreted as being inconsistent as to the question of whether speech is involved, quite apart from whether the cases should ultimately be distinguished. In short, the Commission's consideration of Phillips' religious objection did not accord with its treatment of these other objections.

Before the Colorado Court of Appeals, Phillips protested that this disparity in treatment reflected hostility on the part of the Commission toward his beliefs. He argued that the Commission had treated the other bakers' conscience-based objections as legitimate, but treated his as illegitimate-thus sitting in judgment of his religious beliefs themselves. The Court of Appeals addressed the disparity only in passing and relegated its complete analysis of the issue to a footnote. There, the court stated that "[t]his case is distinguishable from the Colorado Civil Rights Division's recent findings that [the other bakeries] in Denver did not discriminate against a Christian patron on the basis of his creed" when they refused to create the *1731requested cakes. 370 P.3d, at 282, n. 8. In those cases, the court continued, there was no impermissible discrimination because "the Division found that the bakeries ... refuse[d] the patron's request ... because of the offensive nature of the requested message." Ibid.

A principled rationale for the difference in treatment of these two instances cannot be based on the government's own assessment of offensiveness. Just as "no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion," West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943), it is not, as the Court has repeatedly held, the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive. See Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct. 1744, 1762-1764, 198 L.Ed.2d 366 (2017) (opinion of ALITO, J.). The Colorado court's attempt to account for the difference in treatment elevates one view of what is offensive over another and itself sends a signal of official disapproval of Phillips' religious beliefs. The court's footnote does not, therefore, answer the baker's concern that the State's practice was to disfavor the religious basis of his objection.

C

For the reasons just described, the Commission's treatment of Phillips' case violated the State's duty under the First Amendment not to base laws or regulations on hostility to a religion or religious viewpoint.

In Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, supra, the Court made clear that the government, if it is to respect the Constitution's guarantee of free exercise, cannot impose regulations that are hostile to the religious beliefs of affected citizens and cannot act in a manner that passes judgment upon or presupposes the illegitimacy of religious beliefs and practices. The Free Exercise Clause bars even "subtle departures from neutrality" on matters of religion. Id., at 534, 113 S.Ct. 2217. Here, that means the Commission was obliged under the Free Exercise Clause to proceed in a manner neutral toward and tolerant of Phillips' religious beliefs. The Constitution "commits government itself to religious tolerance, and upon even slight suspicion that proposals for state intervention stem from animosity to religion or distrust of its practices, all officials must pause to remember their own high duty to the Constitution and to the rights it secures." Id ., at 547, 113 S.Ct. 2217.

Factors relevant to the assessment of governmental neutrality include "the historical background of the decision under challenge, the specific series of events leading to the enactment or official policy in question, and the legislative or administrative history, including contemporaneous statements made by members of the decisionmaking body." Id ., at 540, 113 S.Ct. 2217. In view of these factors the record here demonstrates that the Commission's consideration of Phillips' case was neither tolerant nor respectful of Phillips' religious beliefs. The Commission gave "every appearance," id ., at 545, 113 S.Ct. 2217, of adjudicating Phillips' religious objection based on a negative normative "evaluation of the particular justification" for his objection and the religious grounds for it. Id ., at 537, 113 S.Ct. 2217. It hardly requires restating that government has no role in deciding or even suggesting whether the religious ground for Phillips' conscience-based objection is legitimate or illegitimate. On these facts, the Court must draw the inference that Phillips' religious objection was not considered with the neutrality that the Free Exercise Clause requires.

*1732While the issues here are difficult to resolve, it must be concluded that the State's interest could have been weighed against Phillips' sincere religious objections in a way consistent with the requisite religious neutrality that must be strictly observed. The official expressions of hostility to religion in some of the commissioners' comments-comments that were not disavowed at the Commission or by the State at any point in the proceedings that led to affirmance of the order-were inconsistent with what the Free Exercise Clause requires. The Commission's disparate consideration of Phillips' case compared to the cases of the other bakers suggests the same. For these reasons, the order must be set aside.

III

The Commission's hostility was inconsistent with the First Amendment's guarantee that our laws be applied in a manner that is neutral toward religion. Phillips was 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. In this case the adjudication concerned a context that may well be different going forward in the respects noted above. However later cases raising these or similar concerns are resolved in the future, for these reasons the rulings of the Commission and of the state court that enforced the Commission's order must be invalidated.

The outcome of cases like this in other circumstances must 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.

The judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals is reversed.

It is so ordered.

"[I]t is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law." Ante, at 1727. But in upholding that principle, state actors cannot show hostility to religious views; rather, they must give those views "neutral and respectful consideration." Ante, at 1729. I join the Court's opinion in full because I believe the Colorado Civil Rights Commission did not satisfy that obligation. I write separately to elaborate on one of the bases for the Court's holding.

The Court partly relies on the "disparate consideration of Phillips' case compared to the cases of [three] other bakers" who "objected to a requested cake on the basis of conscience." Ante, at 1730, 1732. In the latter cases, a customer named William Jack sought "cakes with images that conveyed disapproval of same-sex marriage, along with religious text"; the bakers whom he approached refused to make them. Ante, at 1730; see post, at 1749 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting) (further describing the requested cakes). Those bakers prevailed before the Colorado Civil Rights Division and Commission, while Phillips-who objected for religious reasons to baking a wedding cake for a same-sex couple-did not. The Court finds that the legal reasoning of the state agencies differed in significant ways as between the Jack cases and the Phillips case. See ante, at 1730. And the Court takes especial *1733note of the suggestion made by the Colorado Court of Appeals, in comparing those cases, that the state agencies found the message Jack requested "offensive [in] nature." Ante, at 1731 (internal quotation marks omitted). As the Court states, a "principled rationale for the difference in treatment" cannot be "based on the government's own assessment of offensiveness." Ibid.

What makes the state agencies' consideration yet more disquieting is that a proper basis for distinguishing the cases was available-in fact, was obvious. The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) makes it unlawful for a place of public accommodation to deny "the full and equal enjoyment" of goods and services to individuals based on certain characteristics, including sexual orientation and creed. Colo. Rev. Stat. § 24-34-601(2)(a) (2017). The three bakers in the Jack cases did not violate that law. Jack requested them to make a cake (one denigrating gay people and same-sex marriage) that they would not have made for any customer. In refusing that request, the bakers did not single out Jack because of his religion, but instead treated him in the same way they would have treated anyone else-just as CADA requires. By contrast, the same-sex couple in this case requested a wedding cake that Phillips would have made for an opposite-sex couple. In refusing that request, Phillips contravened CADA's demand that customers receive "the full and equal enjoyment" of public accommodations irrespective of their sexual orientation. Ibid. The different outcomes in the Jack cases and the Phillips case could thus have been justified by a plain reading and neutral application of Colorado law-untainted by any bias against a religious belief.*

I read the Court's opinion as fully consistent with that view. The Court limits its analysis to the reasoning of the state agencies (and Court of Appeals)-"quite *1734apart from whether the [Phillips and Jack] cases should ultimately be distinguished." Ante, at 1727. And the Court itself recognizes the principle that would properly account for a difference in result between those cases. Colorado law, the Court says, "can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public." Ante, at 1728. For that reason, Colorado can treat a baker who discriminates based on sexual orientation differently from a baker who does not discriminate on that or any other prohibited ground. But only, as the Court rightly says, if the State's decisions are not infected by religious hostility or bias. I accordingly concur.

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, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (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, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993).

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 1729 - 1731. 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.

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 1749 - 1750, and n. 4 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting); ante, at 1732 - 1734, and n. (KAGAN, J., concurring). But, respectfully, I do not see how we might rescue the Commission from its error.

A full view of the facts helps point the way to the problem. Start with William Jack's case. He approached three bakers *1735and 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) (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.

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 1749, n. 2 (GINSBURG, J., dissenting); ante, at 1732 - 1734, 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.

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).

*1736So, 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.

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. 460-463 (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, 74 S.Ct. 323, 98 L.Ed. 455 (1954).

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.

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 *1737such 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.

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, 113 S.Ct. 2217. That is anything but the neutral treatment of religion.

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 self-consciously 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 1730 - 1731. 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. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1744, 1764, 198 L.Ed.2d 366 (2017) (plurality opinion) (citing United States v. Schwimmer, 279 U.S. 644, 655, 49 S.Ct. 448, 73 L.Ed. 889 (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, 113 S.Ct. 2217 ; Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U.S. 707, 715-716, 101 S.Ct. 1425, 67 L.Ed.2d 624 (1981) ; Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 223-224, 92 S.Ct. 1526, 32 L.Ed.2d 15 (1972) ; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 308-310, 60 S.Ct. 900, 84 L.Ed. 1213 (1940).

Nor can any amount of after-the-fact maneuvering by 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 1749 - 1750, 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 *1738like any other, so the fact that Mr. Phillips would make one for some means he must make them for all. See ante, at 1732 - 1734, and n. (KAGAN, J., concurring). These arguments, too, fail to afford Mr. Phillips's faith neutral respect.

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, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (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.

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, 63 S.Ct. 1178, or whether an adherent has "correctly perceived" the commands of his religion, Thomas, supra, at 716, 101 S.Ct. 1425. 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. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 569, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) ("[T]he Constitution looks beyond written or spoken words as mediums of expression," which are "not a condition of constitutional protection").

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 produce them. Instead, the Commission accepted the bakers' view that the specific cakes Mr. Jack requested conveyed a message offensive to their convictions and allowed *1739them to refuse service. Having done that there, it must do the same here.

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 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.

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, 110 S.Ct. 1595. 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, 101 S.Ct. 1425. 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, 101 S.Ct. 1425 ; see also United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252, 254-255, 102 S.Ct. 1051, 71 L.Ed.2d 127 (1982) ; Smith, supra, at 887, 110 S.Ct. 1595 (collecting authorities). It is no more appropriate for the United States Supreme Court to tell Mr. Phillips that a wedding *1740cake 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.

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 1732. 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.

I agree that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission (Commission) violated Jack Phillips' right to freely exercise his religion. As Justice GORSUCH explains, the Commission treated Phillips' case differently from a similar case involving three other bakers, for reasons that can only be explained by hostility toward Phillips' religion. See ante, at 1734 - 1737 (concurring opinion). The Court agrees that the Commission treated Phillips differently, and it points out that some of the Commissioners made comments disparaging Phillips' religion. See ante, at 1728 - 1731. Although the Commissioners' comments are certainly disturbing, the discriminatory application of Colorado's public-accommodations law is enough on its own to violate Phillips' rights. To the extent the Court agrees, I join its opinion.

While Phillips rightly prevails on his free-exercise claim, I write separately to address his free-speech claim. The Court does not address this claim because it has some uncertainties about the record. See ante, at 1723 - 1724. Specifically, the parties dispute whether Phillips refused to create a custom wedding cake for the individual respondents, or whether he refused to sell them any wedding cake (including a premade one). But the Colorado Court of Appeals resolved this factual dispute in Phillips' favor. The court described his conduct as a refusal to "design and create a cake to celebrate [a] same-sex wedding." Craig v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, Inc., 370 P.3d 272, 276 (2015) ; see also id., at 286 ("designing and selling a wedding cake"); id., at 283 ("refusing to create a wedding cake"). And it noted that the Commission's order required Phillips to sell " 'any product [he] would sell to heterosexual couples,' " including custom wedding cakes. Id., at 286 (emphasis added).

Even after describing his conduct this way, the Court of Appeals concluded that Phillips' conduct was not expressive and was not protected speech. It reasoned that an outside observer would think that Phillips was merely complying with Colorado's public-accommodations law, not expressing a message, and that Phillips could post a disclaimer to that effect. This reasoning flouts bedrock principles of our free-speech jurisprudence and would justify virtually any law that compels individuals to speak. It should not pass without comment.

*1741I

The First Amendment, applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits state laws that abridge the "freedom of speech." When interpreting this command, this Court has distinguished between regulations of speech and regulations of conduct. The latter generally do not abridge the freedom of speech, even if they impose "incidental burdens" on expression. Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 567, 131 S.Ct. 2653, 180 L.Ed.2d 544 (2011). As the Court explains today, public-accommodations laws usually regulate conduct. Ante, at 1727 - 1728 (citing Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U.S. 557, 572, 115 S.Ct. 2338, 132 L.Ed.2d 487 (1995) ). "[A]s a general matter," public-accommodations laws do not "target speech" but instead prohibit "the act of discriminating against individuals in the provision of publicly available goods, privileges, and services." Id., at 572, 115 S.Ct. 2338 (emphasis added).

Although public-accommodations laws generally regulate conduct, particular applications of them can burden protected speech. When a public-accommodations law "ha[s] the effect of declaring ... speech itself to be the public accommodation," the First Amendment applies with full force. Id., at 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338 ; accord, Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, 530 U.S. 640, 657-659, 120 S.Ct. 2446, 147 L.Ed.2d 554 (2000). In Hurley, for example, a Massachusetts public-accommodations law prohibited " 'any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of ... sexual orientation ... relative to the admission of any person to, or treatment in any place of public accommodation.' " 515 U.S., at 561, 115 S.Ct. 2338 (quoting Mass. Gen. Laws § 272:98 (1992); ellipsis in original). When this law required the sponsor of a St. Patrick's Day parade to include a parade unit of gay, lesbian, and bisexual Irish-Americans, the Court unanimously held that the law violated the sponsor's right to free speech. Parades are "a form of expression," this Court explained, and the application of the public-accommodations law "alter [ed] the expressive content" of the parade by forcing the sponsor to add a new unit. 515 U.S., at 568, 572-573, 115 S.Ct. 2338. The addition of that unit compelled the organizer to "bear witness to the fact that some Irish are gay, lesbian, or bisexual"; "suggest ... that people of their sexual orientation have as much claim to unqualified social acceptance as heterosexuals"; and imply that their participation "merits celebration." Id., at 574, 115 S.Ct. 2338. While this Court acknowledged that the unit's exclusion might have been "misguided, or even hurtful," ibid., it rejected the notion that governments can mandate "thoughts and statements acceptable to some groups or, indeed, all people" as the "antithesis" of free speech, id., at 579, 115 S.Ct. 2338 ; accord, Dale, supra, at 660-661, 120 S.Ct. 2446.

The parade in Hurley was an example of what this Court has termed "expressive conduct." See 515 U.S., at 568-569, 115 S.Ct. 2338. This Court has long held that "the Constitution looks beyond written or spoken words as mediums of expression," id., at 569, 115 S.Ct. 2338, and that "[s]ymbolism is a primitive but effective way of communicating ideas," West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 632, 63 S.Ct. 1178, 87 L.Ed. 1628 (1943). Thus, a person's "conduct may be 'sufficiently imbued with elements of communication to fall within the scope of the First and Fourteenth Amendments.' " Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397, 404, 109 S.Ct. 2533, 105 L.Ed.2d 342 (1989). Applying this principle, the Court has recognized a wide array of conduct that can qualify as expressive, including nude dancing, burning the American flag, flying an upside-down American *1742flag with a taped-on peace sign, wearing a military uniform, wearing a black armband, conducting a silent sit-in, refusing to salute the American flag, and flying a plain red flag.1

Of course, conduct does not qualify as protected speech simply because "the person engaging in [it] intends thereby to express an idea." United States v. O'Brien, 391 U.S. 367, 376, 88 S.Ct. 1673, 20 L.Ed.2d 672 (1968). To determine whether conduct is sufficiently expressive, the Court asks whether it was "intended to be communicative" and, "in context, would reasonably be understood by the viewer to be communicative." Clark v. Community for Creative Non-Violence, 468 U.S. 288, 294, 104 S.Ct. 3065, 82 L.Ed.2d 221 (1984). But a " 'particularized message' " is not required, or else the freedom of speech "would never reach the unquestionably shielded painting of Jackson Pollock, music of Arnold Schöenberg, or Jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll." Hurley, 515 U.S., at 569, 115 S.Ct. 2338.

Once a court concludes that conduct is expressive, the Constitution limits the government's authority to restrict or compel it. "[O]ne important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide 'what not to say' " and "tailor" the content of his message as he sees fit. Id., at 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338 (quoting Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm'n of Cal., 475 U.S. 1, 16, 106 S.Ct. 903, 89 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (plurality opinion)). This rule "applies not only to expressions of value, opinion, or endorsement, but equally to statements of fact the speaker would rather avoid." Hurley, supra, at 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338. And it "makes no difference" whether the government is regulating the "creati[on], distributi [on], or consum[ption]" of the speech. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn., 564 U.S. 786, 792, n. 1, 131 S.Ct. 2729, 180 L.Ed.2d 708 (2011).

II

A

The conduct that the Colorado Court of Appeals ascribed to Phillips-creating and designing custom wedding cakes-is expressive. Phillips considers himself an artist. The logo for Masterpiece Cakeshop is an artist's paint palette with a paintbrush and baker's whisk. Behind the counter Phillips has a picture that depicts him as an artist painting on a canvas. Phillips takes exceptional care with each cake that he creates-sketching the design out on paper, choosing the color scheme, creating the frosting and decorations, baking and sculpting the cake, decorating it, and delivering it to the wedding. Examples of his creations can be seen on Masterpiece's website. See http://masterpiececakes.com/wedding-cakes (as last visited June 1, 2018).

Phillips is an active participant in the wedding celebration. He sits down with each couple for a consultation before he creates their custom wedding cake. He discusses their preferences, their personalities, and the details of their wedding to *1743ensure that each cake reflects the couple who ordered it. In addition to creating and delivering the cake-a focal point of the wedding celebration-Phillips sometimes stays and interacts with the guests at the wedding. And the guests often recognize his creations and seek his bakery out afterward. Phillips also sees the inherent symbolism in wedding cakes. To him, a wedding cake inherently communicates that "a wedding has occurred, a marriage has begun, and the couple should be celebrated." App. 162.

Wedding cakes do, in fact, communicate this message. A tradition from Victorian England that made its way to America after the Civil War, "[w]edding cakes are so packed with symbolism that it is hard to know where to begin." M. Krondl, Sweet Invention: A History of Dessert 321 (2011) (Krondl); see also ibid. (explaining the symbolism behind the color, texture, flavor, and cutting of the cake). If an average person walked into a room and saw a white, multi-tiered cake, he would immediately know that he had stumbled upon a wedding. The cake is "so standardised and inevitable a part of getting married that few ever think to question it." Charsley, Interpretation and Custom: The Case of the Wedding Cake, 22 Man 93, 95 (1987). Almost no wedding, no matter how spartan, is missing the cake. See id., at 98. "A whole series of events expected in the context of a wedding would be impossible without it: an essential photograph, the cutting, the toast, and the distribution of both cake and favours at the wedding and afterwards." Ibid. Although the cake is eventually eaten, that is not its primary purpose. See id., at 95 ("It is not unusual to hear people declaring that they do not like wedding cake, meaning that they do not like to eat it. This includes people who are, without question, having such cakes for their weddings"); id., at 97 ("Nothing is made of the eating itself"); Krondl 320-321 (explaining that wedding cakes have long been described as "inedible"). The cake's purpose is to mark the beginning of a new marriage and to celebrate the couple.2

Accordingly, Phillips' creation of custom wedding cakes is expressive. The use of his artistic talents to create a well-recognized symbol that celebrates the beginning of a marriage clearly communicates a message-certainly more so than nude dancing, Barnes v. Glen Theatre, Inc., 501 U.S. 560, 565-566, 111 S.Ct. 2456, 115 L.Ed.2d 504 (1991), or flying a plain red flag, Stromberg v. California, 283 U.S. 359, 369, 51 S.Ct. 532, 75 L.Ed. 1117 (1931).3 By *1744forcing Phillips to create custom wedding cakes for same-sex weddings, Colorado's public-accommodations law "alter[s] the expressive content" of his message. Hurley, 515 U.S., at 572, 115 S.Ct. 2338. The meaning of expressive conduct, this Court has explained, depends on "the context in which it occur[s]." Johnson, 491 U.S., at 405, 109 S.Ct. 2533. Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are "weddings" and suggest that they should be celebrated-the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to "bear witness to [these] fact[s]," Hurley, 515 U.S., at 574, 115 S.Ct. 2338, or to "affir [m] ... a belief with which [he] disagrees," id., at 573, 115 S.Ct. 2338.

B

The Colorado Court of Appeals nevertheless concluded that Phillips' conduct was "not sufficiently expressive" to be protected from state compulsion. 370 P.3d, at 283. It noted that a reasonable observer would not view Phillips' conduct as "an endorsement of same-sex marriage," but rather as mere "compliance" with Colorado's public-accommodations law. Id., at 286-287 (citing Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 64-65, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (FAIR ); Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U.S. 819, 841-842, 115 S.Ct. 2510, 132 L.Ed.2d 700 (1995) ; PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U.S. 74, 76-78, 100 S.Ct. 2035, 64 L.Ed.2d 741 (1980) ). It also emphasized that Masterpiece could "disassociat[e]" itself from same-sex marriage by posting a "disclaimer" stating that Colorado law "requires it not to discriminate" or that "the provision of its services does not constitute an endorsement." 370 P.3d, at 288. This reasoning is badly misguided.

1

The Colorado Court of Appeals was wrong to conclude that Phillips' conduct was not expressive because a reasonable observer would think he is merely complying with Colorado's public-accommodations law. This argument would justify any law that compelled protected speech. And, this Court has never accepted it. From the beginning, this Court's compelled-speech precedents have rejected arguments that "would resolve every issue of power in favor of those in authority." Barnette, 319 U.S., at 636, 63 S.Ct. 1178. Hurley, for example, held that the application of Massachusetts' public-accommodations law "requir[ed] [the organizers] to alter the expressive content of their parade." 515 U.S., at 572-573, 115 S.Ct. 2338. It did not hold that reasonable observers would view the organizers as merely complying with Massachusetts' public-accommodations law.

The decisions that the Colorado Court of Appeals cited for this proposition are far afield. It cited three decisions where groups objected to being forced to provide a forum for a third party's speech. See FAIR, supra, at 51, 126 S.Ct. 1297 (law school refused to allow military recruiters *1745on campus); Rosenberger, supra, at 822-823, 115 S.Ct. 2510 (public university refused to provide funds to a religious student paper); PruneYard, supra, at 77, 100 S.Ct. 2035 (shopping center refused to allow individuals to collect signatures on its property). In those decisions, this Court rejected the argument that requiring the groups to provide a forum for third-party speech also required them to endorse that speech. See FAIR, supra, at 63-65, 126 S.Ct. 1297 ; Rosenberger, supra, at 841-842, 115 S.Ct. 2510 ; PruneYard, supra, at 85-88, 100 S.Ct. 2035. But these decisions do not suggest that the government can force speakers to alter their own message. See Pacific Gas & Elec., 475 U.S., at 12, 106 S.Ct. 903 ("Notably absent from PruneYard was any concern that access ... might affect the shopping center owner's exercise of his own right to speak"); Hurley, supra, at 580, 115 S.Ct. 2338 (similar).

The Colorado Court of Appeals also noted that Masterpiece is a "for-profit bakery" that "charges its customers." 370 P.3d, at 287. But this Court has repeatedly rejected the notion that a speaker's profit motive gives the government a freer hand in compelling speech. See Pacific Gas & Elec., supra, at 8, 16, 106 S.Ct. 903 (collecting cases); Virginia Bd. of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748, 761, 96 S.Ct. 1817, 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976) (deeming it "beyond serious dispute" that "[s]peech ... is protected even though it is carried in a form that is 'sold' for profit"). Further, even assuming that most for-profit companies prioritize maximizing profits over communicating a message, that is not true for Masterpiece Cakeshop. Phillips routinely sacrifices profits to ensure that Masterpiece operates in a way that represents his Christian faith. He is not open on Sundays, he pays his employees a higher-than-average wage, and he loans them money in times of need. Phillips also refuses to bake cakes containing alcohol, cakes with racist or homophobic messages, cakes criticizing God, and cakes celebrating Halloween-even though Halloween is one of the most lucrative seasons for bakeries. These efforts to exercise control over the messages that Masterpiece sends are still more evidence that Phillips' conduct is expressive. See Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241, 256-258, 94 S.Ct. 2831, 41 L.Ed.2d 730 (1974) ; Walker v. Texas Div., Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., 576 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 2239, 2251, 192 L.Ed.2d 274 (2015).

2

The Colorado Court of Appeals also erred by suggesting that Phillips could simply post a disclaimer, disassociating Masterpiece from any support for same-sex marriage. Again, this argument would justify any law compelling speech. And again, this Court has rejected it. We have described similar arguments as "beg[ging] the core question." Tornillo, supra, at 256, 94 S.Ct. 2831. Because the government cannot compel speech, it also cannot "require speakers to affirm in one breath that which they deny in the next." Pacific Gas & Elec., 475 U.S., at 16, 106 S.Ct. 903 ; see also id., at 15, n. 11, 106 S.Ct. 903 (citing PruneYard, 447 U.S., at 99, 100 S.Ct. 2035 (Powell, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)). States cannot put individuals to the choice of "be[ing] compelled to affirm someone else's belief" or "be[ing] forced to speak when [they] would prefer to remain silent." Id., at 99, 100 S.Ct. 2035.

III

Because Phillips' conduct (as described by the Colorado Court of Appeals) was expressive, Colorado's public-accommodations law cannot penalize it unless the law *1746withstands strict scrutiny. Although this Court sometimes reviews regulations of expressive conduct under the more lenient test articulated in O'Brien,4 that test does not apply unless the government would have punished the conduct regardless of its expressive component. See, e.g., Barnes, 501 U.S., at 566-572, 111 S.Ct. 2456 (applying O'Brien to evaluate the application of a general nudity ban to nude dancing); Clark, 468 U.S., at 293, 104 S.Ct. 3065 (applying O'Brien to evaluate the application of a general camping ban to a demonstration in the park). Here, however, Colorado would not be punishing Phillips if he refused to create any custom wedding cakes; it is punishing him because he refuses to create custom wedding cakes that express approval of same-sex marriage. In cases like this one, our precedents demand " 'the most exacting scrutiny.' " Johnson, 491 U.S., at 412, 109 S.Ct. 2533 ; accord, Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 28, 130 S.Ct. 2705, 177 L.Ed.2d 355 (2010).

The Court of Appeals did not address whether Colorado's law survives strict scrutiny, and I will not do so in the first instance. There is an obvious flaw, however, with one of the asserted justifications for Colorado's law. According to the individual respondents, Colorado can compel Phillips' speech to prevent him from " 'denigrat[ing] the dignity' " of same-sex couples, " 'assert[ing] [their] inferiority,' " and subjecting them to " 'humiliation, frustration, and embarrassment.' " Brief for Respondents Craig et al. 39 (quoting J.E.B. v. Alabama ex rel. T. B., 511 U.S. 127, 142, 114 S.Ct. 1419, 128 L.Ed.2d 89 (1994) ; Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States, 379 U.S. 241, 292, 85 S.Ct. 348, 13 L.Ed.2d 258 (1964) (Goldberg, J., concurring)). These justifications are completely foreign to our free-speech jurisprudence.

States cannot punish protected speech because some group finds it offensive, hurtful, stigmatic, unreasonable, or undignified. "If there is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment, it is that the government may not prohibit the expression of an idea simply because society finds the idea itself offensive or disagreeable." Johnson, supra, at 414, 109 S.Ct. 2533. A contrary rule would allow the government to stamp out virtually any speech at will. See Morse v. Frederick, 551 U.S. 393, 409, 127 S.Ct. 2618, 168 L.Ed.2d 290 (2007) ("After all, much political and religious speech might be perceived as offensive to some"). As the Court reiterates today, "it is not ... the role of the State or its officials to prescribe what shall be offensive." Ante, at 1731. " 'Indeed, if it is the speaker's opinion that gives offense, that consequence is a reason for according it constitutional protection.' " Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46, 55, 108 S.Ct. 876, 99 L.Ed.2d 41 (1988) ; accord, Johnson, supra, at 408-409, 109 S.Ct. 2533. If the only reason a public-accommodations law regulates speech is "to produce a society free of ... biases" against the protected groups, that purpose is "decidedly fatal" to the law's constitutionality, "for it amounts to nothing less than a proposal to limit speech in the service of orthodox expression." Hurley, 515 U.S., at 578-579, 115 S.Ct. 2338 ; see also *1747United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U.S. 803, 813, 120 S.Ct. 1878, 146 L.Ed.2d 865 (2000) ("Where the designed benefit of a content-based speech restriction is to shield the sensibilities of listeners, the general rule is that the right of expression prevails"). "[A] speech burden based on audience reactions is simply government hostility ... in a different guise." Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1744, 1767, 198 L.Ed.2d 366 (2017) (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

Consider what Phillips actually said to the individual respondents in this case. After sitting down with them for a consultation, Phillips told the couple, " 'I'll make your birthday cakes, shower cakes, sell you cookies and brownies, I just don't make cakes for same sex weddings.' " App. 168. It is hard to see how this statement stigmatizes gays and lesbians more than blocking them from marching in a city parade, dismissing them from the Boy Scouts, or subjecting them to signs that say "God Hates Fags"-all of which this Court has deemed protected by the First Amendment. See Hurley, supra, at 574-575, 115 S.Ct. 2338 ; Dale, 530 U.S., at 644, 120 S.Ct. 2446 ; Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U.S. 443, 448, 131 S.Ct. 1207, 179 L.Ed.2d 172 (2011). Moreover, it is also hard to see how Phillips' statement is worse than the racist, demeaning, and even threatening speech toward blacks that this Court has tolerated in previous decisions. Concerns about "dignity" and "stigma" did not carry the day when this Court affirmed the right of white supremacists to burn a 25-foot cross, Virginia v. Black, 538 U.S. 343, 123 S.Ct. 1536, 155 L.Ed.2d 535 (2003) ; conduct a rally on Martin Luther King Jr.'s birthday, Forsyth County v. Nationalist Movement, 505 U.S. 123, 112 S.Ct. 2395, 120 L.Ed.2d 101 (1992) ; or circulate a film featuring hooded Klan members who were brandishing weapons and threatening to " 'Bury the niggers,' " Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444, 446, n. 1, 89 S.Ct. 1827, 23 L.Ed.2d 430 (1969) (per curiam ).

Nor does the fact that this Court has now decided Obergefell v. Hodges, 576 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2584, 192 L.Ed.2d 609 (2015), somehow diminish Phillips' right to free speech. "It is one thing ... to conclude that the Constitution protects a right to same-sex marriage; it is something else to portray everyone who does not share [that view] as bigoted" and unentitled to express a different view. Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2626 (ROBERTS, C.J., dissenting). This Court is not an authority on matters of conscience, and its decisions can (and often should) be criticized. The First Amendment gives individuals the right to disagree about the correctness of Obergefell and the morality of same-sex marriage. Obergefell itself emphasized that the traditional understanding of marriage "long has been held-and continues to be held-in good faith by reasonable and sincere people here and throughout the world." Id ., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2594 (majority opinion). If Phillips' continued adherence to that understanding makes him a minority after Obergefell , that is all the more reason to insist that his speech be protected. See Dale, supra, at 660, 120 S.Ct. 2446 ("[T]he fact that [the social acceptance of homosexuality] may be embraced and advocated by increasing numbers of people is all the more reason to protect the First Amendment rights of those who wish to voice a different view").

* * *

In Obergefell , I warned that the Court's decision would "inevitabl [y] ... come into conflict" with religious liberty, "as individuals ... are confronted with demands to participate in and endorse civil marriages between same-sex couples." 576 U.S., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2638 (dissenting opinion). This case proves that the conflict has *1748already emerged. Because the Court's decision vindicates Phillips' right to free exercise, it seems that religious liberty has lived to fight another day. But, in future cases, the freedom of speech could be essential to preventing Obergefell from being used to "stamp out every vestige of dissent" and "vilify Americans who are unwilling to assent to the new orthodoxy." Id., at ----, 135 S.Ct., at 2642 (ALITO, J., dissenting). If that freedom is to maintain its vitality, reasoning like the Colorado Court of Appeals' must be rejected.

There is much in the Court's opinion with which I agree. "[I]t is a general rule that [religious and philosophical] objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law." Ante, at 1727. "Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public." Ante, at 1727 - 1728. "[P]urveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons [may not] put up signs saying 'no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.' " Ante, at 1728 - 1729. Gay persons may be spared from "indignities when they seek goods and services in an open market." Ante, at 1732.1 I strongly disagree, however, with the Court's conclusion that Craig and Mullins should lose this case. All of the above-quoted statements point in the opposite direction.

The Court concludes that "Phillips' religious objection was not considered with the neutrality that the Free Exercise Clause requires." Ante, at 1731. This conclusion rests on evidence said to show the Colorado Civil Rights Commission's *1749(Commission) hostility to religion. Hostility is discernible, the Court maintains, from the asserted "disparate consideration of Phillips' case compared to the cases of" three other bakers who refused to make cakes requested by William Jack, an amicus here. Ante, at 1732. The Court also finds hostility in statements made at two public hearings on Phillips' appeal to the Commission. Ante, at 1728 - 1730. The different outcomes the Court features do not evidence hostility to religion of the kind we have previously held to signal a free-exercise violation, nor do the comments by one or two members of one of the four decisionmaking entities considering this case justify reversing the judgment below.

I

On March 13, 2014-approximately three months after the ALJ ruled in favor of the same-sex couple, Craig and Mullins, and two months before the Commission heard Phillips' appeal from that decision-William Jack visited three Colorado bakeries. His visits followed a similar pattern. He requested two cakes

"made to resemble an open Bible. He also requested that each cake be decorated with Biblical verses. [He] requested that one of the cakes include an image of two groomsmen, holding hands, with a red 'X' over the image. On one cake, he requested [on] one side[,] ... 'God hates sin. Psalm 45:7' and on the opposite side of the cake 'Homosexuality is a detestable sin. Leviticus 18:2.' On the second cake, [the one] with the image of the two groomsmen covered by a red 'X' [Jack] requested [these words]: 'God loves sinners' and on the other side 'While we were yet sinners Christ died for us. Romans 5:8.' " App. to Pet. for Cert. 319a; see id., at 300a, 310a.

In contrast to Jack, Craig and Mullins simply requested a wedding cake: They mentioned no message or anything else distinguishing the cake they wanted to buy from any other wedding cake Phillips would have sold.

One bakery told Jack it would make cakes in the shape of Bibles, but would not decorate them with the requested messages; the owner told Jack her bakery "does not discriminate" and "accept[s] all humans." Id., at 301a (internal quotation marks omitted). The second bakery owner told Jack he "had done open Bibles and books many times and that they look amazing," but declined to make the specific cakes Jack described because the baker regarded the messages as "hateful." Id., at 310a (internal quotation marks omitted). The third bakery, according to Jack, said it would bake the cakes, but would not include the requested message. Id., at 319a.2

Jack filed charges against each bakery with the Colorado Civil Rights Division (Division). The Division found no probable cause to support Jack's claims of unequal treatment and denial of goods or services based on his Christian religious beliefs. Id., at 297a, 307a, 316a. In this regard, the Division observed that the bakeries regularly produced cakes and other baked goods with Christian symbols and had denied other customer requests for designs demeaning people whose dignity the Colorado Antidiscrimination Act (CADA) protects. See id., at 305a, 314a, 324a. The Commission summarily affirmed the Division's no-probable-cause finding. See id., at 326a-331a.

*1750The Court concludes that "the Commission's consideration of Phillips' religious objection did not accord with its treatment of [the other bakers'] objections." Ante, at 1730. See also ante, at 1736 - 1737 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). But the cases the Court aligns are hardly comparable. The bakers would have refused to make a cake with Jack's requested message for any customer, regardless of his or her religion. And the bakers visited by Jack would have sold him any baked goods they would have sold anyone else. The bakeries' refusal to make Jack cakes of a kind they would not make for any customer scarcely resembles Phillips' refusal to serve Craig and Mullins: Phillips would not sell to Craig and Mullins, for no reason other than their sexual orientation, a cake of the kind he regularly sold to others. When a couple contacts a bakery for a wedding cake, the product they are seeking is a cake celebrating their wedding-not a cake celebrating heterosexual weddings or same-sex weddings-and that is the service Craig and Mullins were denied. Cf. ante, at 1735 - 1736, 1738 - 1739 (GORSUCH, J., concurring). Colorado, the Court does not gainsay, prohibits precisely the discrimination Craig and Mullins encountered. See supra, at 1748. Jack, on the other hand, suffered no service refusal on the basis of his religion or any other protected characteristic. He was treated as any other customer would have been treated-no better, no worse.3

The fact that Phillips might sell other cakes and cookies to gay and lesbian customers4 was irrelevant to the issue Craig and Mullins' case presented. What matters is that Phillips would not provide a good or service to a same-sex couple that he would provide to a heterosexual couple. In contrast, the other bakeries' sale of other goods to Christian customers was relevant: It shows that there were no goods the bakeries would sell to a non-Christian customer that they would refuse to sell to a Christian customer. Cf. ante, at 1730.

Nor was the Colorado Court of Appeals' "difference in treatment of these two instances ... based on the government's own assessment of offensiveness." Ante, at 1731. Phillips declined to make a cake he found offensive where the offensiveness of the product was determined solely by the identity of the customer requesting it. The three other bakeries declined to make cakes where their objection to the product was due to the demeaning message the *1751requested product would literally display. As the Court recognizes, a refusal "to design a special cake with words or images ... might be different from a refusal to sell any cake at all." Ante, at 1723.5 The Colorado Court of Appeals did not distinguish Phillips and the other three bakeries based simply on its or the Division's finding that messages in the cakes Jack requested were offensive while any message in a cake for Craig and Mullins was not. The Colorado court distinguished the cases on the ground that Craig and Mullins were denied service based on an aspect of their identity that the State chose to grant vigorous protection from discrimination. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 20a, n. 8 ("The Division found that the bakeries did not refuse [Jack's] request because of his creed, but rather because of the offensive nature of the requested message.... [T]here was no evidence that the bakeries based their decisions on [Jack's] religion ... [whereas Phillips] discriminat [ed] on the basis of sexual orientation."). I do not read the Court to suggest that the Colorado Legislature's decision to include certain protected characteristics in CADA is an impermissible government prescription of what is and is not offensive. Cf. ante, at 1727 - 1728. To repeat, the Court affirms that "Colorado law can protect gay persons, just as it can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public." Ante, at 1728.

II

Statements made at the Commission's public hearings on Phillips' case provide no firmer support for the Court's holding today. Whatever one may think of the statements in historical context, I see no reason why the comments of one or two Commissioners should be taken to overcome Phillips' refusal to sell a wedding cake to Craig and Mullins. The proceedings involved several layers of independent decisionmaking, of which the Commission was but one. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 5a-6a. First, the Division had to find probable cause that Phillips violated CADA. Second, the ALJ entertained the parties' cross-motions for summary judgment. Third, the Commission heard Phillips' appeal. Fourth, after the Commission's ruling, the Colorado Court of Appeals considered the case de novo . What prejudice infected the determinations of the adjudicators in the case before and after the Commission? The Court does not say. Phillips' case is thus far removed from the only precedent upon which the Court relies, Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993), where the government action that *1752violated a principle of religious neutrality implicated a sole decisionmaking body, the city council, see id., at 526-528, 113 S.Ct. 2217.

* * *

For the reasons stated, sensible application of CADA to a refusal to sell any wedding cake to a gay couple should occasion affirmance of the Colorado Court of Appeals' judgment. I would so rule.