LogFAQs > #974531957

Additional details that are very important:

*Decision (I don't agree with) appears to be based on the argument that creative services encompass free speech and thus first amendment, so "I won't sell a loaf of bread" isn't the same.

Gorsuch wrote that the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. He said Colorado sought to deny that promise.

All manner of speech from pictures, films, paintings, drawings, and engravings, to oral utterance and the printed word qualify for the First Amendments protections; no less can hold true when it comes to speech like Ms. Smiths conveyed over the Internet, Gorsuch said.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/30/politics/supreme-court-303-creative-
lgbtq-rights-colorado/index.html

*This *doesn't* establish what falls UNDER free speech for a business, so a tailor or hairdresser might be able to argue the creativity in their service allows them to refuse service to a LBQT customer

*As others have pointed out, it also seems to imply a person professing their religion condemns a specific race would be allowed to refuse a creative service... or even refuse another religion?