Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/22pdf/21-476_c185.pdf
Page Number: 18

12 

303 CREATIVE LLC v. ELENIS 

Opinion of the Court 

topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected 
trait.  6  F. 4th,  at  1198  (Tymkovich,  C. J.,  dissenting).
Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government 
to  force  all  manner  of  artists,  speechwriters,  and  others
whose services involve speech to speak what they do not be-
lieve on pain of penalty.  The government could require “an
unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zi-
onist message,” or “an atheist muralist to accept a commis-
sion  celebrating  Evangelical  zeal,”  so  long  as  they  would
make films or murals for other members of the public with
different messages.  Id., at 1199.  Equally, the government
could force a male website designer married to another man 
to  design  websites  for  an  organization  that  advocates
against  same-sex  marriage.  See  Brief  for  Petitioners  26– 
27.  Countless  other  creative  professionals,  too,  could  be
forced  to  choose  between  remaining  silent,  producing
speech that violates their beliefs, or speaking their minds 
and incurring sanctions for doing so.  See, e.g., Brief for Cre-
ative  Professionals  et al.  as  Amici  Curiae  5–10;  Brief  for 
First Amendment Scholars as Amici Curiae 19–22.  As our 
precedents recognize, the First Amendment tolerates none 
of that. 

In saying this much, we do not question the vital role pub-
lic accommodations laws play in realizing the civil rights of 
all  Americans.  This  Court  has  recognized  that  govern-
ments in this country have a “compelling interest” in elim-
inating  discrimination in  places  of  public  accommodation. 
Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 628 (1984); 
see also Hurley, 515 U. S., at 571–572.  This Court has rec-
ognized,  too,  that  public  accommodations  laws  “vindicate 
the deprivation of personal dignity that surely accompanies
denials of equal access to public establishments.”  Heart of 
Atlanta  Motel,  Inc.  v.  United  States,  379  U. S.  241,  250 
(1964)  (internal  quotation  marks  omitted);  see  also,  e.g., 
Katzenbach v. McClung, 379 U. S. 294 (1964); Newman v.