This decision by the Arizona Supreme Court distorts the meaning of constitutionally protected speech and devalues the government’s interest in combating invidious discrimination.

The Larsens, through their company, sell a service to the public. And the law is clear that once a person opens up their services to the public, they do not have a constitutional right to discriminate against their customers or employees.

The Washington Supreme Court reaffirmed its earlier decision that neither free speech, nor freedom of association, nor religious freedom gives the right to violate anti-discrimination laws.