Smith now believes, nevertheless, that “God is asking her ‘to explain His true story about marriage.’ ” Brief for Petitioners 7 (quoting App. Fair, 547 U. S., at 60; Hishon, 467 U. S., at 78; Runyon, 427 U. S., at 176. Even when Smith believes God is asking her to take action by her for-profit firm, the corporate want not hold out its items or providers to the public at massive. For that reason, she says, she wants her for-revenue firm to enter the marriage website enterprise. They sought a court decree giving them a special exemption from CADA’s Accommodation Clause (which, remember, makes it unlawful for a enterprise to carry itself out to the general public but deny to any particular person, due to sexual orientation, the total and equal enjoyment of the business’s items or companies, see supra, at 3-4) and CADA’s Communication Clause (which makes it unlawful to promote that items or companies might be denied due to sexual orientation, see supra, at 4). App.
Brief for Respondents 15. (Just as it may supply only t-shirts with such quotations.) The corporate could also refuse to include the phrases “Love is Love” if it wouldn’t provide these words to any buyer. All the corporate has to do is offer its services without regard to customers’ protected traits. All the company may not do is provide wedding ceremony websites to the general public but refuse those same websites to gay and lesbian couples. According to Smith, the Free Speech Clause of the primary Amendment entitles her company to refuse to promote any “websites for identical-intercourse weddings,” regardless that the company plans to offer wedding ceremony web sites to most of the people. Indeed, it was political expression, which lies at the center of the first Amendment. The legislation colleges in Fair claimed that the Solomon Amendment infringed the schools’ First Amendment freedom of speech. The first Amendment doesn’t entitle petitioners to a special exemption from a state legislation that simply requires them to serve all members of the public on equal terms. This Court has lengthy held that “the First Amendment does not prevent restrictions directed at commerce or conduct from imposing incidental burdens on speech.” Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U. S. 552, 567 (2011). “Congress, for example, can prohibit employers from discriminating in hiring on the premise of race.
The primary Amendment likewise doesn’t exempt petitioners from the law’s prohibition on posting a notice that they are going to deny goods or companies based on sexual orientation. As the first lady to own a novelty company in the US, I felt that we could better tackle the wants of women. Colorado, therefore, has never needed to implement its antidiscrimination laws against the corporate. This principle explains “why an ordinance against outdoor fires may forbid burning a flag and why antitrust laws can prohibit agreements in restraint of commerce.” Sorrell, 564 U. S., at 567 (citation and inside citation marks omitted). Petitioners stay free to advocate the thought that same-intercourse marriage betrays God’s laws. Recall that Smith needs to post a discover on her company’s homepage that the corporate will refuse to sell any web site for a identical-intercourse couple’s wedding. Rev. Stat. §24-34-601(1), but not to same-intercourse couples. This Court, nevertheless, has already mentioned that “a ban on race-based mostly hiring may require employers to remove ‘White Applicants Only’ signs.” Sorrell, 564 U. S., at 567 (quoting Fair, 547 U. S., at 62; some inner citation marks omitted); see Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376, 389 (1973). So petitioners concede that they aren’t entitled to an exemption from the Communication Clause until they are also entitled to an exemption from the Accommodation Clause.