Public-Accommodation Laws Must Respect, Not Violate, Free Speech

Across the country, government officials are overextending a well-intentioned category of law to target constitutionally protected speech. Public-accommodation laws have historically existed to make sure people can buy a hotel room, order a meal, or catch a movie without being turned away because of their race, religion, or other personal characteristics. That’s a good and necessary goal. But in state after state, officials have started using these laws for something they were never designed to do: forcing people to say things they don’t believe.

The pattern looks different in each case. An athletic apparel company is told it can’t describe the biological differences between men and women. A Christian bookstore is ordered to use language that contradicts its owner’s convictions. Counselors are barred from speaking honestly with the clients who come to them for help. The businesses and professionals differ, but the government’s playbook is the same: relabel disagreement with the government’s viewpoint as “discrimination,” then claim the law requires you to speak the government’s message.

That playbook has already met defeat at the U.S. Supreme Court, in a case that protected the free speech rights for all Americans.

A critical ruling

By now, you have probably heard about the story of Lorie Smith. Lorie is a graphic artist based in Colorado who creates custom websites for her clients through her business, 303 Creative.

But the state of Colorado tried to force Lorie to say things she doesn’t believe. Government officials claimed that the state’s public-accommodation law required Lorie to create websites expressing messages inconsistent with God’s design for marriage. Thankfully, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected Colorado’s attempt to use public-accommodation laws to compel Lorie’s speech. In June 2023, the Court ruled in Lorie’s favor and reaffirmed the fundamental right of all Americans to speak freely, choosing which messages they express without fear of government punishment.

The Court’s ruling also made clear that public-accommodation laws remain firmly in place. The government has never needed to compel speech to ensure access to goods and services. This is a win for all Americans as the Court affirmed that the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination in order to compel or censor it. The First Amendment and public-accommodation laws can readily coexist.

What is the history of public-accommodation laws?

Historically, a public accommodation has been defined in the law to cover entities like inns, taverns, and trains that are open to the public and sell some type of standardized good or service—a hotel room, for example, or a train ticket.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 slightly expanded that historical definition to also cover certain restaurants and places of public amusement, like movie theaters. According to this law, these places of public accommodation cannot deny basic goods and services to potential customers based on their race, color, religion, or national origin.

Since then, various state and local governments have passed their own public-accommodation laws. While many jurisdictions correctly apply these laws to help ensure people have access to basic goods and services, some misuse their laws to force people to say things they don’t believe, violating First Amendment rights.

Colorado continues to get it wrong

As the U.S. Supreme Court reaffirmed in 303 Creative, states like Colorado can’t misuse public-accommodation laws to violate the First Amendment. The government should no more punish Lorie for speaking consistently with her beliefs than it should punish an LGBT-identifying graphic designer for speaking consistently with his beliefs.

Unfortunately, Colorado still hasn’t learned this lesson.

XX-XY Athletics v. Sullivan

Colorado is attempting to violate an athletic apparel company’s right to speak truthfully about the biological differences between men and women. The issue began in May 2025, when the state enacted a new law that amended the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to include “chosen name” and how an individual “chooses to be addressed” within the definition of “gender expression.” As an athletic apparel company, XX-XY Athletics understands that there are inherent physical differences between men and women that are especially apparent in sports. It shouldn’t be forced to speak messages it doesn’t believe are true, nor should it be silenced from sharing its own beliefs truthfully.

Born Again Used Books v. Sullivan

The same May 2025 Colorado law change that impacts XX-XY Athletics has had similar negative implications for Born Again Used Books. Although the bookstore happily sells its products to everyone, Colorado is now attempting to force the bookstore to prioritize a person’s self-professed identity over biological reality. Again, this very clearly violates the bookstore’s Christian beliefs and the First Amendment.

Both of these cases highlight the fact that public-accommodation laws can affect far more than just an artist’s ability to express their beliefs. They are actively affecting many other everyday businesses.

It’s not just Colorado

Colorado isn’t the only state that has attempted to regulate certain viewpoints and eliminate them from the public square. Government officials across the country have wrongly mislabeled speech as discrimination in order to regulate it, falsely claiming that forcing people to violate their beliefs is the only way to combat harmful ideas and avoid offense.

In Missouri, for instance, Kansas City counselors Wyatt Bury and Pamela Eisenreich sued the city and Jackson County over ordinances that violate their free speech and push children to reject biological reality. These ordinances only operated in one direction: a counselor may steer a minor to live at odds with the child’s sex but cannot help a young client regain comfort with his or her sex—even when that’s the client’s personally stated goal.

Of note—and bringing this back to Colorado—Wyatt Bury, LLC. v. City of Kansas City was given new life thanks to a separate Colorado case. After an unfavorable ruling at the district court level in Wyatt Bury, Alliance Defending Freedom got a huge 8-1 win at the U.S. Supreme Court in Chiles v. Salazar, upholding free speech in the counseling room. That decision helped pave the way for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit to reverse the district court decision in Wyatt Bury and order the lower court to take another look at the case.

Disagreement isn’t discrimination

It’s become a fraught legal battleground, but the truth of the matter is rather simple: Disagreement isn’t discrimination. And censorship and compelled speech are like a poisonous gas. As cultural and political winds shift, no one escapes them. When we give the government the power to censor one of us, we are giving it the power to censor any of us.

At their core, public-accommodation laws are meant to guarantee access to the marketplace—not to give the government a veto over what people believe. As the Supreme Court clearly articulated in its ruling, public-accommodation laws are not an excuse to ignore freedom of speech. Many other states have long ensured access to essential goods and services without compelling speech, and now Colorado—and every other state—must do the same.

One doesn’t have to agree with one side or the other about an issue to affirm that every person has the God-given right to speak freely without government censorship. And if we want freedom for ourselves, we must defend it for others.