Lorie Smith can breathe a sigh of relief. After a seven-year court battle, the website designer from Colorado received a win from the highest court in the land Friday.
In a decisive 6-3 ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld Smith’s rights to decline creating messages about marriage that would violate her religious beliefs.
The case is hugely important in that it adds clarity to the clash between our constitutional rights to free speech and religious freedom and the rights of LGBTQ+ individuals through public accommodation laws.
The Supreme Court has heard similar cases in the past – and declined to take up others – yet has danced around the key questions that arise in these lawsuits.
It didn’t this time.
“The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees,” states the majority opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch.
“The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy,” Gorsuch continued. “In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. … Consistent with the First Amendment, the Nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion. 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.”
Another view:Supreme Court's 303 Creative decision distorts religious freedom. We are no longer equal.
Lorie Smith can get back to the work she loves
Smith’s business, 303 Creative, is devoted to projects she cares about, including websites for animal shelters and veterans. She wanted to expand her creative endeavors to design websites for weddings.
Yet, because of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, she knew she wouldn’t be allowed to decline creating sites for same-sex weddings. Because of her beliefs that marriage is between one man and one woman, this would have violated her conscience.
Colorado’s law is the same one at the heart of the Masterpiece Cakeshop case from 2018. In that ruling, the Supreme Court sided with baker Jack Phillips, but issued a very narrow ruling in his favor that addressed only the hostility the government showed to him because of his faith and his decision to decline baking a cake for a same-sex wedding.
Since the court didn’t address the bigger question about Phillips’ free speech rights as a creative professional, he has faced subsequent legal challenges and persecution.
In our polarized society, Smith (much like Phillips) has been – and will continue to be – portrayed as a bigot who simply doesn’t want to deal with the LGBTQ+ community.
From Lorie Smith:State tramples our First Amendment rights as Christian artists. We're fighting back.
That’s unfortunate and false. Smith works with all people, and both sides in her case acknowledged that fact. What she doesn’t want to be forced to do, however, is create sites and messages that go against her beliefs, regardless of who requests them.
Now, she doesn’t have to.
“Since the start, seven years ago, I've held onto hope that the court will rule to protect what we value, in that bottom line, when speech is involved, speech should be protected,” Smith told me ahead of the ruling. “A victory for me here is a victory for each and every one of us.”
A 'win for all Americans'
Liberal activists will paint this decision as an erosion of LGBTQ+ rights and claim that the community could be denied access to essential goods and services.
That’s not true, and our Constitution and laws forbid that kind of discrimination. In fact, the court affirmed public accommodation rights, while also standing firmly on the side of free speech rights – and against government-compelled speech.
Rather, by upholding our First Amendment rights, the high court’s ruling is a "win for all Americans," said Kristen Waggoner, CEO, president and general counsel of Alliance Defending Freedom, in a statement.ADF represented Smith.
“The government should no more censor Lorie for speaking consistent with her beliefs about marriage than it should punish an LGBT graphic designer for declining to criticize same-sex marriage,” Waggoner said.
“If we desire freedom for ourselves, we must defend it for others.”
How true.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her atijacques@usatoday.comor on Twitter:@Ingrid_Jacques
