On the last day of Pride Month, the Supreme Court has ruled that a Colorado graphic designer does not have to create wedding websites for same-sex couples.
Colorado resident Lorie Smith sued her state over The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), a law that prohibits a business from refusing service based on someone’s identity. Smith, who owns a graphic design business called 303 Creative, wrote a webpage explaining that she would not create wedding websites for same-sex couples. But under CADA, this statement was considered to be illegal.
In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that Colorado’s enforcement of CADA is a violation of the First Amendment and Smith cannot be compelled by the state to create a website for same-sex couples if she chooses not to.
“The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.“
Supreme Court ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis
In the majority opinion, Justice Gorsuch wrote that while states have enacted laws to protect against discrimination, “no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution.” The court pointed out that if it were to enforce anti-discrimination laws that compel a business to perform a service that violates its beliefs, individuals will face violations of their First Amendment rights. These violations would apply not just to anti-LGBT Americans, but all individuals of differing beliefs.
“Taken seriously, that principle would allow the government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty. The government could require ‘an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,’ or ‘an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,’ so long as they would make films or murals for other members of the public with different messages.“
Supreme Court ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis
In the dissent, Justice Sotomayor criticized the Court’s decision to side with Smith. “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote.
Throughout her dissenting opinion, Sotomayor argues that businesses cannot discriminate against “unfavored groups.” However, in this court case, LGBT couples are being favored by the state, and businesses like Smith’s are being compelled to participate in speech they do not agree with.
In a fiery portion of the majority opinion, Justice Gorsuch criticized the arguments made in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent in rather blunt terms.
“It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,” Gorsuch commented. “Instead of addressing the parties’ stipulations about the case actually before us, the dissent spends much of its time adrift on a sea of hypotheticals about photographers, stationers, and others, asking if they too provide expressive services covered by the First Amendment. But those are not in this case.”
It’s worth pointing out that Smith has not declined to provide a service to members of the LGBTQ community. She has, however, stated that she simply will not promote a message that contradicts her beliefs.
“I think it’s important for people to understand that I love and welcome the opportunity to work with all people. My case has never been about choosing which client to work with, but about choosing the message that I’m being asked to promote,” Smith explained in a 2022 interview with Fox News Digital.
“The dissent abandons what this Court’s cases have recognized time and time again: A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all.“
Justice Gorsuch’s majority opinion in 303 Creative v. Elenis
