Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 26.0

20 

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS 

Opinion of the Court 

seeks to compel “pure speech,” 6 F. 4th, at 1176.  The dis-
sent  chides  us  for  deciding  a  pre-enforcement  challenge. 
Post, at 23.  But it ignores the Tenth Circuit’s finding that
Ms.  Smith  faces  a  credible  threat  of  sanctions  unless  she 
conforms her views to the State’s.  6 F. 4th, at 1172–1175. 
The dissent suggests (over and over again) that any burden
on  speech  here  is  “incidental.”  Post,  at  24,  26–30,  32–33. 
All  despite  the  Tenth  Circuit’s  finding  that  Colorado  in-
tends to force Ms. Smith to convey a message she does not 
believe with the “very purpose” of “[e]liminating . . . ideas” 
that differ from its own.  6 F. 4th, at 1178.4 

Nor does the dissent’s reimagination end there.  It claims 
that, “for the first time in its history,” the Court “grants a
business open to the public” a “right to refuse to serve mem-
bers of a protected class.”  Post, at 1; see also id., at 26, n. 10, 
35.  Never mind that we do no such thing and Colorado itself 
has  stipulated  Ms.  Smith  will  (as  CADA  requires)  “work 
with all people regardless of . . . sexual orientation.”  App.
to Pet. for Cert. 184a.  Never mind, too, that it is the dissent 
that would have this Court do something truly novel by al-
lowing a government to coerce an individual to speak con-
trary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal convic-
tion, all in order to eliminate ideas that differ from its own. 
There is still more.  The dissent asserts that we “sweep 
under the rug petitioners’ challenge to CADA’s Communi-
cation Clause.”  Post, at 26.  This despite the fact the parties
and the Tenth Circuit recognized that Ms. Smith’s Commu-
nication  Clause  challenge  hinges  on  her  Accommodation 
Clause challenge.  (So much so that Colorado devoted less
than two pages at the tail end of its brief to the Communi-
cation Clause and the Tenth Circuit afforded it just three 

—————— 

4 Perplexingly, too, the dissent suggests that, by recounting the Tenth
Circuit’s  conclusion  on  this  score,  we  “misunderstan[d]  this  case”  and
“invo[ke] . . . Orwellian thought policing.”  Post, at 34, n. 14.