Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 20.0

14 

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS 

Opinion of the Court 

op., at 10).  States may “protect gay persons, just as [they] 
can protect other classes of individuals, in acquiring what-
ever products and services they choose on the same terms 
and conditions as are offered to other members of the pub-
lic.  And there are no doubt innumerable goods and services
that  no  one  could  argue  implicate the  First  Amendment.” 
Ibid.;  see  also  Hurley,  515  U. S.,  at  571–572;  6  F. 4th,  at 
1203 (Tymkovich, C. J., dissenting).  Consistent with all of 
this, Ms. Smith herself recognizes that Colorado and other
States are generally free to apply their public accommoda-
tions  laws,  including  their  provisions  protecting  gay  per-
sons, to a vast array of businesses.  Reply Brief 15; see Tr.
of Oral Arg. 45–46. 

At the same time, this Court has also recognized that no
public accommodations law is immune from the demands of 
the Constitution.  In particular, this Court has held, public 
accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when de-
ployed to compel speech.  In Hurley, the Court commented 
favorably  on  Massachusetts’  public  accommodations  law,
but made plain it could not be “applied to expressive activ-
ity” to compel speech.  515 U. S., at 571, 578.  In Dale, the 
Court  observed  that  New  Jersey’s  public  accommodations 
law had many lawful applications but held that it could “not 
justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ rights to 
freedom of expressive association.”  530 U. S., at 659.  And, 
once  more,  what  was  true  in  those  cases  must  hold  true 
here.  When  a  state  public  accommodations  law  and  the 
Constitution collide, there can be no question which must
prevail.  U. S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. 

Nor is it any answer, as the Tenth Circuit seemed to sup-
pose,  that Ms.  Smith’s  services  are  “unique.”   6  F. 4th,  at 

—————— 
(West 2019); Ore. Rev. Stat. §659A.403 (2021); R. I. Gen. Laws §11–24–
2 (2002); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 9, §4502(a) (2020); Va. Code Ann. §2.2–3904 
(2022);  Wash.  Rev.  Code  §49.60.215  (2022);  Wis.  Stat.  §106.52  (2019– 
2020).    See  also  Brief  for  Local  Governments  et  al.  as  Amici  Curiae  5 
(noting that many local governments have enacted similar rules).