The Colorado Supreme Court has an opportunity to end the 13-year-long harassment of Christian baker Jack Phillips .

The court announced it would take up Phillips’ challenge to a $500 fine levied against him for refusing to bake a “gender transition” cake requested by an activist attorney.

The same activist also asked him to bake “another custom cake, one depicting Satan smoking marijuana, to ‘correct the errors of [Phillips’] thinking,’” according to Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Phillips and his store, Masterpiece Cakeshop.

But Phillips has a chance to defeat the decision thanks to the Supreme Court of the United States ruling in 303 Creative v. Elenis. The First Amendment “prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority, in favor of Lorie Smith and against Colorado’s “Anti-Discrimination Act.”

State officials used the same law against Phillips for the “gender transition” cake and when he declined to bake a cake supportive of a same-sex wedding after being asked to do so in 2012. While Phillips won that case, it was a narrow victory that addressed the Colorado Civil Rights Commission’s “clear and impermissible hostility toward the sincere religious beliefs” of the Christian baker.

The U.S. Supreme Court has made clear that artists cannot be forced to use their skills to promote messages opposed to their values.

Colorado’s highest court, ostensibly there to protect the civil rights of all citizens, should rule favorably and broadly in favor of Phillips and all creatives who have objections to promoting activities they view as immoral, such as same-sex weddings, abortion, and transgenderism.

Both Phillips and Smith respect their fellow Coloradans as individuals deserving of human dignity, even if they make lifestyle choices at odds with their own beliefs. Neither business owner has objections to serving LGBT people in general, but they object to promoting certain messages. This extends to other messages that even nonreligious people would find offensive.

“Ms. Smith stresses, too, that she has not and will not create expressions that defy any of her beliefs for any customer, whether that involves encouraging violence, demeaning another person, or promoting views inconsistent with her religious commitments,” the U.S. Supreme Court wrote in the 303 Collective decision.

Similarly, Phillips refuses to create items for Halloween , which he objects to as a Christian.

“You don’t need to agree with Jack’s views to agree that Americans shouldn’t be compelled to express what they don’t believe,” ADF attorney Jake Warner explained.

Nor do you need to agree with Jack’s views to agree that Colorado officials must respect his religious and free speech rights. “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed; and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity, on account of his opinions concerning religion,” Article II, Section 4 of the state constitution explains.

Similarly, the state promises that “every person shall be free to speak, write or publish whatever he will on any subject.”

That includes the choice not to write or publish on subjects.

The court should do right by Phillips and issue a broad ruling in favor of his right to associate with whom he wants and write, or not write, what he wants as a business owner and citizen.

Matt Lamb is a contributor to the Washington Examiner's Beltway Confidential blog. He is an associate editor for the College Fix and has previously worked for Students for Life of America and Turning Point USA.