Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 59

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

27 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

individuals  in  the  provision  of  publicly  available  goods, 
privileges,  and  services.”  Ibid.  (emphasis  added).  The 
State confirms this reading of CADA.  The law applies only 
to  status-based  refusals  to  provide  the  full  and  equal 
enjoyment of whatever services petitioners choose to sell to
the public.  See Brief for Respondents 15–18.

Crucially, the law “does not dictate the content of speech 
at all, which is only ‘compelled’ if, and to the extent,” the 
company  offers  “such  speech”  to  other  customers.  FAIR, 
547 U. S., at 62.  Colorado does not require the company to
“speak [the State’s] preferred message.”  Ante, at 19.  Nor 
does it prohibit the company from speaking the company’s
preferred message.  The company could, for example, offer 
only  wedding  websites  with  biblical  quotations  describing 
marriage  as  between  one  man  and  one  woman.    Brief  for 
Respondents  15.  (Just  as  it  could  offer  only  t-shirts  with 
such quotations.)  The company could also refuse to include 
the words “Love is Love” if it would not provide those words 
to any customer.  All the company has to do is offer its ser-
vices  without  regard  to  customers’  protected  characteris-
tics.  Id., at 15–16.  Any effect on the company’s speech is 
therefore “incidental” to the State’s content-neutral regula-
tion  of  conduct.  FAIR,  547  U. S.,  at  62;  see  Hurley,  515 
U. S., at 572–573. 

Once these features of the law are understood, it becomes 
clear that petitioners’ freedom of speech is not abridged in
any meaningful sense, factual or legal.  Petitioners remain 
free  to  advocate  the  idea  that  same-sex  marriage  betrays
God’s laws.  FAIR, 547 U. S., at 60; Hishon, 467 U. S., at 78; 
Runyon, 427 U. S., at 176.  Even if Smith believes God is 
calling her to do so through her for-profit company, the com-
pany need not hold out its goods or services to the public at
large.  Many filmmakers, visual artists, and writers never 
do.  (That is why the law does not require Steven Spielberg
or Banksy to make films or art for anyone who asks.  But 
cf. ante, at 12, 23–24.)  Finally, and most importantly, even