THE AMERICA ONE NEWS
May 31, 2025  |  
0
 | Remer,MN
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET 
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge.
Sponsor:  QWIKET: Elevate your fantasy game! Interactive Sports Knowledge and Reasoning Support for Fantasy Sports and Betting Enthusiasts.
back  
topic
Kaelan Deese, Supreme Court Reporter


NextImg:Supreme Court sides with web designer who didn't want to create pro-LGBT messages

The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with a Colorado-based website designer, holding that the state's anti-discrimination law would have an impact on her business and violate her First Amendment rights.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 majority opinion, holding that "The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees."

CALIFORNIA REPARATIONS: WHAT NEWSOM HAS SAID AHEAD OF TASK FORCE'S FINAL PROPOSAL

Lorie Smith.

"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," Gorsuch added.

Gorsuch's majority opinion was joined by the court's Republican-appointed justices while liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

"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 in her dissent.

The lawsuit brought against Colorado's anti-discrimination law stems from a religious business owner who sees herself as an artist who does not want to use her creative talents to express a message against her beliefs.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER

Plaintiff Lorie Smith argued the state's public accommodations law bars her from doing what she wants to do more than anything else — create custom websites for heterosexual couples.

During December's oral arguments, her counsel argued that Smith's Christian faith prevents her from doing work for same-sex marriages and claimed her business has been stifled from getting off the ground over the concern that she may face litigation if she denies services to same-sex clients.

This is a developing story and will be updated.