Page:303 Creative LLC v. Elenis.pdf/33

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
Cite as: 600 U. S. ____ (2023)
1

Sotomayor, J., dissenting

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES


No. 21–476


303 CREATIVE LLC, ET AL., PETITIONERS v. AUBREY ELENIS, ET AL.
ON WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
[June 30, 2023]

Justice Sotomayor, with whom Justice Kagan and Justice Jackson join, dissenting.

Five years ago, this Court recognized the “general rule” that religious and philosophical objections to gay marriage “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.” Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Comm’n, 584 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., at 9). The Court also recognized the “serious stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and services who object to gay marriages for moral and religious reasons” were “allowed to put up signs saying ‘no goods or services will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 12).

Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. Specifically, the Court holds that the First Amendment exempts a website-design company from a state law that prohibits the company from denying wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company chooses to sell those websites to the public. The Court also holds that the company has a right to post a notice that says, “ ‘no [wedding websites] will be sold if they will be used for gay marriages.’ ” Ibid.