Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 53.0

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

21 

SOTOMAYOR, J., dissenting 

explained, “has no constitutional right to deal only with per-
sons of one sex.”  Ibid. 

its  First  Amendment  rights  “of 

To wit, the Court had just decided in Hishon v. King & 
Spalding,  467  U. S.  69,  78  (1984), that  a  law  partnership
had no constitutional right to discriminate on the basis of
sex in violation of Title VII.  The law partnership was an 
act of association.  Its services (legal advocacy) were expres-
sive; indeed, they consisted of speech.  So the law firm ar-
gued that requiring it to consider a woman for the partner-
free 
ship  violated 
expression” and “of commercial association.”  Brief for Re-
spondent,  O. T.  1983,  No.  82–940,  pp.  14–18.    This  Court 
rejected that argument.  The application of Title VII did not 
“infringe constitutional rights of expression or association,” 
the Court held, because compliance with Title VII did not 
“inhibi[t]” the partnership’s ability to advocate for certain 
“ideas  and  beliefs.”    467  U. S.,  at  78  (internal  quotation
marks omitted); see also supra, at 19 (discussing Runyon, 
427 U. S., at 176).  The Court reiterated: “ ‘[I]nvidious pri-
vate discrimination . . . has never been accorded affirmative 
constitutional protections.’ ”  467 U. S., at 78 (quoting Nor-
wood, 413 U. S., at 470). 

II 

Battling  discrimination  is  like  “battling  the  Hydra.” 
Shelby County v. Holder, 570 U. S. 529, 560 (2013) (Gins-
burg, J., dissenting).  Whenever you defeat “one form of . . .
discrimination,”  another  “spr[ings]  up  in  its  place.”    Ibid. 
Time and again, businesses and other commercial entities
have  claimed  constitutional  rights  to  discriminate.    And 
time  and  again,  this  Court  has  courageously  stood  up  to 
those  claims—until  today.  Today,  the  Court  shrinks.    A 
business claims that it would like to sell wedding websites 
to the general public, yet deny those same websites to gay
and lesbian couples.  Under state law, the business is free 
to include, or not to include, any lawful message it wants in