Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 61

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

29 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

newlywed  gay  or  lesbian  couple,  even  if  she  believes  the 
couple is not, in fact, just married because in her view their 
marriage is “false.”  Tr. of Oral Arg. 36, 40–41. 

3 
Because any burden on petitioners’ speech is incidental
to  CADA’s  neutral  regulation  of  commercial  conduct,  the
regulation  is  subject  to  the  standard  set  forth  in  O’Brien. 
That standard is easily satisfied here because the law’s ap-
plication “promotes a substantial government interest that
would  be  achieved  less  effectively  absent  the  regulation.” 
FAIR, 547 U. S., at 67 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Indeed, this Court has already held that the State’s goal of
“eliminating discrimination and assuring its citizens equal 
access  to  publicly  available  goods  and  services”  is  “unre-
lated to the suppression of expression” and “plainly serves 
compelling  state  interests  of  the  highest  order.”    Roberts, 
468 U. S., at 624.  The Court has also held that by prohibit-
ing only “acts of invidious discrimination in the distribution 
of publicly available goods, services, and other advantages,”
the  law  “responds  precisely  to  the  substantive  problem
which legitimately concerns the State and abridges no more 
speech . . . than is necessary to accomplish that purpose.” 
Id., at 628–629 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks
omitted); see supra, at 4–7. 

C 

The Court reaches the wrong answer in this case because 
it asks the wrong questions.  The question is not whether 
the  company’s  products  include  “elements  of  speech.” 
FAIR, 547 U. S., at 61.  (They do.)  The question is not even
whether  CADA  would  require  the  company  to  create  and
sell speech, notwithstanding the owner’s sincere objection
to doing so, if the company chooses to offer “such speech” to
the public.  Id., at 62.  (It would.)  These questions do not 
resolve the First Amendment inquiry any more than they