Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 33.0

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 econ-
omy and in society to deny protected persons equal access
to goods and services under a neutral and generally appli-
cable 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 “seri-
ous stigma” that would result if “purveyors of goods and ser-
vices  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  com-
pany 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.