Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 69

Cite as:  600 U. S. ____ (2023) 

37 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

cannot be limited to discrimination on the basis of sexual 
orientation  or  gender  identity.    The  decision  threatens  to 
balkanize  the  market  and  to  allow  the  exclusion  of  other 
groups  from  many  services.  A  website  designer  could 
equally refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial 
couple, for example.  How quickly we forget that opposition 
to interracial marriage was often because “ ‘Almighty God 
. . . did not intend for the races to mix.’ ”  Loving v. Virginia, 
388 U. S. 1, 3 (1967).  Yet the reason for discrimination need 
not  even  be  religious,  as  this  case  arises  under  the  Free 
Speech Clause.  A stationer could refuse to sell a birth an-
nouncement for a disabled couple because she opposes their 
having a child.  A large retail store could reserve its family
portrait services for “traditional” families.  And so on.16 

Wedding  websites,  birth  announcements,  family  por-
traits,  epitaphs.  These  are  not  just  words  and  images.
They  are  the  most  profound  moments  in  a  human’s  life.
They are the moments that give that life personal and cul-
tural  meaning.  You  already  heard  the  story  of  Bob  and 
Jack, the elderly gay couple forced to find a funeral home
more  than  an  hour  away.    Supra,  at  5–6,  and  n. 4.    Now 
hear the story of Cynthia and Sherry, a lesbian couple of 13 
years until Cynthia died from cancer at age 35.  When Cyn-
thia was diagnosed, she drew up a will, which authorized 
Sherry to make burial arrangements.  Cynthia had asked
Sherry  to  include  an  inscription  on  her  headstone,  listing
the relationships that were important to her, for example, 
“daughter, granddaughter, sister, and aunt.”  After Cynthia 
—————— 

16 The potential implications of the Court’s logic are deeply troubling. 
Would Runyon v. McCrary have come out differently if the schools had 
argued that accepting Black children would have required them to create 
original speech, like lessons, report cards, or diplomas, that they deeply
objected  to?  What  if  the  law  firm  in  Hishon  v.  King  &  Spalding  had 
argued that promoting a woman to the partnership would have required
it to alter its speech, like letterhead or court filings, in ways that it would 
rather not?  Once you look closely, “compelled speech” (in the majority’s 
facile understanding of that concept) is everywhere.