Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 68.0

36 

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

sex  couple  that  their  parents’  relationship  is  not  equal  to
others’.  And  it  reminds  LGBT  people  of  a  painful  feeling 
that they  know all too well: There are some public places 
where they can be themselves, and some where they cannot. 
K. Yoshino, Covering 61–66 (2006).  Ask any LGBT person, 
and you will learn just how often they are forced to navigate
life in this way.  They must ask themselves: If I reveal my 
identity to this co-worker, or to this shopkeeper, will they 
treat me the same way?  If I hold the hand of my partner in 
this setting, will someone stare at me, harass me, or even 
hurt me?  It is an awful way to live.  Freedom from this way
of life is the very object of a law that declares: All members 
of the public are entitled to inhabit public spaces on equal 
terms. 

This case cannot be understood outside of the context in 
which it arises.  In that context, the outcome is even more 
distressing.  The LGBT rights movement has made historic 
strides,  and  I  am  proud  of  the  role  this  Court  recently
played in that history.  Today, however, we are taking steps
backward.  A slew of anti-LGBT laws have been passed in 
some parts of the country,15 raising the specter of a “bare 
. . . desire to harm a politically unpopular group.”  Romer, 
517 U. S., at 634 (internal quotation marks omitted).  This 
is especially unnerving when “for centuries there have been 
powerful voices to condemn” this small minority.  Lawrence 
v. Texas, 539 U. S. 558, 571 (2003).  In this pivotal moment,
the Court had an opportunity to reaffirm its commitment to 
equality  on  behalf  of  all  members  of  society,  including 
LGBT people.  It does not do so. 

Although  the  consequences  of  today’s  decision  might  be 
most pressing for the LGBT community, the decision’s logic 

—————— 

15 These  laws  variously  censor  discussion  of  sexual  orientation  and 
gender identity in schools, see, e.g., 2023 Ky. Acts pp. 775–779, and ban 
drag shows in public, see 2023 Tenn. Pub. Acts ch. 2.  Yet we are told 
that the real threat to free speech is that a commercial business open to
the public might have to serve all members of the public.