The last assertion may seem odd: the 303 Creative case, while presented as a free speech challenge, is part of an ongoing litigation campaign by religious conservatives seeking to frame LGBTQ rights as an assault on Christianity—and the decision is therefore being hailed in right-wing circles as a victory for religious liberty.

But this supposed inherent conflict between LGBTQ rights and religion was always false: much of mainstream religion (including, for example, the Episcopal Church, the Evangelical Lutheran Church and Conservative Judaism) embraces equality for LGBTQ individuals and families, many of who, of course, are themselves people of faith.

Diverse religious stakeholders have therefore filed amicus briefs in most every major LGBTQ rights case (including 303 Creative) to demonstrate support for equality and to explain that favoring anti-LGBTQ religious views would, in fact, be an attack on their religious values.

These briefs (including several filed by my law firm) have argued that religious freedom is best protected by maintaining a traditional distinction: Religious actors have near-total liberty within their institutions to define and enforce their religious values, but assume different obligations when they choose to participate in the commercial marketplace.

Where a business operates as a public accommodation offering goods and services to all, it must provide access to those in protected classes even if that conflicts with private religious (or social or political) views. As the Supreme Court explained in applying the Civil Rights Act of 1964, personal disapproval of integrated dining, even on religious grounds, did not entitle restaurant owners to exclude Black customers. And until now, the court had never held that private views about LGBTQ people created an exception from statutes protecting their equal access to good and services.