Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 6

6 

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS 

Syllabus 

tions state, to the contrary, that Ms. Smith will gladly conduct busi-
ness with those having protected characteristics so long as the custom
graphics and websites she is asked to create do not violate her beliefs.
Ms. Smith stresses that she does not create expressions that defy any
of her beliefs for any customer, whether that involves encouraging vi-
olence,  demeaning  another  person,  or  promoting  views  inconsistent 
with her religious commitments.  

The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speak-
ers whose motives the government finds worthy.  In this case, Colorado 
seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views
but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.  In the 
past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested 
the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they 
thought vital at the time.  But abiding the Constitution’s commitment
to the freedom of speech means all will encounter ideas that are “mis-
guided, or even hurtful.”  Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574.  Consistent with 
the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. 
The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and com-
plex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, 
not as the government demands.  Colorado cannot deny that promise 
consistent with the First Amendment.  Pp. 15–19, 24–25. 

6 F. 4th 1160, reversed. 

GORSUCH,  J.,  delivered  the  opinion  of  the  Court,  in  which  ROBERTS, 
C. J., and  THOMAS,  ALITO, KAVANAUGH,  and  BARRETT,  JJ.,  joined.  SO-
TOMAYOR,  J.,  filed  a  dissenting  opinion,  in  which  KAGAN  and  JACKSON, 
JJ., joined.