Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 66

34 

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

company’s] speech in order to excise certain ideas or view-
points from the public dialogue.”  The State’s “very purpose 
in seeking to apply its law,” in the majority’s view, is “the 
coercive  elimination  of  dissenting  ideas  about  marriage.” 
Ante,  at  10–11  (internal  quotation  marks  and  brackets 
omitted).14    That  is  an  astonishing  view  of  the  law.    It  is 
contrary to the fact that a law requiring public-facing busi-
nesses to accept all comers “is textbook viewpoint neutral,” 
Christian Legal Soc. Chapter of Univ. of Cal., Hastings Col-
lege of Law v. Martinez, 561 U. S. 661, 695 (2010); contrary 
to the fact that the Accommodation Clause and the State’s 
application  of  it  here  allows  Smith  to  include  in  her  com-
pany’s goods and services whatever “dissenting views about 
marriage”  she  wants;  and  contrary  to  this  Court’s  clear 
holdings that the purpose of a public accommodations law, 
as  applied  to  the  commercial  act  of  discrimination  in  the 
sale  of  publicly  available  goods  and  services,  is  to  ensure
equal access to and equal dignity in the public marketplace, 
supra, at 4–6. 

So it is dispiriting to read the majority suggest that this
case  resembles  West  Virginia  Bd.  of  Ed.  v.  Barnette,  319 
U. S. 624 (1943).  A content-neutral equal-access policy is
“a far cry” from a mandate to “endorse” a pledge chosen by
the Government.  FAIR, 547 U. S., at 62.  This Court has 
said  “it  trivializes  the  freedom  protected  in  Barnette”  to 
equate the two.  Ibid.  Requiring Smith’s company to abide
by  a  law  against  invidious  discrimination  in  commercial 
sales to the public does not conscript her into espousing the 
government’s message.  It does not “invad[e]” her “sphere of 
intellect” or violate her constitutional “right to differ.”  Ante, 
at  2,  7  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted).    All  it  does  is 

—————— 

14 The majority’s repeated invocation of this Orwellian thought policing 
is revealing of just how much it misunderstands this case.  See ante, at 
10–12, 19–20, 24–25 (claiming that the State seeks to “eliminate ideas”
and  that  it  will  punish  Smith  unless  she  “conforms  her  views  to  the 
State’s”).