Sotomayor, J., dissenting
explained, “has no constitutional right to deal only with persons of one sex.” Ibid.
To wit, the Court had just decided in Hishon v. King & Spalding, 467 U. S. 69, 78 (1984), that a law partnership had no constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of sex in violation of Title VII. The law partnership was an act of association. Its services (legal advocacy) were expressive; indeed, they consisted of speech. So the law firm argued that requiring it to consider a woman for the partnership violated its First Amendment rights “of free expression” and “of commercial association.” Brief for Respondent, O. T. 1983, No. 82–940, pp. 14–18. This Court rejected that argument. The application of Title VII did not “infringe constitutional rights of expression or association,” the Court held, because compliance with Title VII did not “inhibi[t]” the partnership’s ability to advocate for certain “ideas and beliefs.” 467 U. S., at 78 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also supra, at 19 (discussing Runyon, 427 U. S., at 176). The Court reiterated: “ ‘[I]nvidious private discrimination … has never been accorded affirmative constitutional protections.’ ” 467 U. S., at 78 (quoting Norwood, 413 U. S., at 470).
II
Battling discrimination is like “battling the Hydra.” Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. 529, 560 (2013) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). Whenever you defeat “one form of … discrimination,” another “spr[ings] up in its place.” Ibid. Time and again, businesses and other commercial entities have claimed constitutional rights to discriminate. And time and again, this Court has courageously stood up to those claims—until today. Today, the Court shrinks. A business claims that it would like to sell wedding websites to the general public, yet deny those same websites to gay and lesbian couples. Under state law, the business is free to include, or not to include, any lawful message it wants in
