In a groundbreaking ruling, the U.S. Supreme Court defended the First Amendment freedoms of a Colorado graphic designer, highlighting the clash between LGBTQ non-discrimination and the right to free speech.
The 6-3 decision, announced on Friday, favored artist Lorie Smith, who courageously challenged the state’s anti-discrimination law that forced businesses to provide services for same-sex marriages against their deeply held beliefs.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, authoring the majority opinion, underscored the importance of individual conscience and freedom of expression, stating, “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.”
He further emphasized that the United States stands as a nation that values tolerance over coercion, where citizens are free to think and speak as they wish without government interference. The Court’s judgment unequivocally defended the constitutional promise of free thought and expression.
This decision overturns a previous ruling by a lower court that had sided against Smith, claiming her First Amendment rights were not infringed.
The Supreme Court majority disagreed, pointing out the potential danger in the government’s ability to compel individuals to express beliefs contrary to their own.
They cautioned against a slippery slope where artists, speechwriters, and others could be coerced into creating content that contradicts their deeply held convictions.
The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, garnered national attention due to the clash between First Amendment rights and non-discrimination measures aimed at protecting the LGBTQ community.
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), the law at the heart of the dispute, prohibits businesses from refusing services based on a customer’s identity.
Supporters argue that such legislation is necessary to prevent discrimination.
Throughout the legal proceedings, Smith made it clear that she has no issues working with the LGBTQ community in general but has reservations about promoting messages that conflict with her religious beliefs during gay weddings.
In a March 2022 interview with Fox News Digital, she stressed that her case was not about selecting clients but rather about choosing the messages she is being asked to endorse.
Kristen Waggoner, the lawyer representing Smith from the Alliance Defending Freedom, hailed the Supreme Court’s ruling as a victory for all Americans.
She emphasized that nondiscrimination laws remain intact and reiterated that the government does not need to compel speech to ensure access to goods and services.
Waggoner aptly argued that just as an LGBT graphic designer should not be penalized for declining to criticize same-sex marriage, Lorie Smith should not be censored for expressing her beliefs about marriage.
However, dissenting from the majority, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, described the ruling as a license to discriminate, alleging that it perpetuates a second-class status for gays and lesbians.
While Justice Sotomayor’s opinion deserves respect, Justice Gorsuch contended that true commitment to the First Amendment requires protecting speech, even when the message is unpopular.
Smith, who displayed immense courage throughout the legal battle, faced significant challenges and threats.
She experienced online harassment, including death threats and attempts to hack into her website.
Despite these hardships, Smith remains resolute, emphasizing that the right to free speech is a fundamental principle worth defending.
This Supreme Court ruling marks the second time the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act has been central to a case before the highest court.
In 2018, Masterpiece Cakeshop won a similar case where the owner, Jack Phillips, declined to create custom cakes for gay weddings.
While that case did not directly address the constitutionality of the law itself, it exposed the anti-religious bias of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was entrusted with enforcing the legislation against Phillips.
In a time when personal liberties and freedom of expression are continually tested, this Supreme Court decision stands as a reminder that our constitutional rights must be safeguarded.
It serves as a beacon for those who value individual liberties, limited government, and traditional values, reinforcing the cherished foundations upon which our Republic was built.
