The Supreme Court ruled Friday in in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that a Christian web designer cannot be compelled to create a wedding website for a same-sex couple.
Lorie Smith, a graphic designer who wanted to expand into wedding websites, sought a ruling that Colorado could not enforce its anti-discrimination law against her. Smith opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and wanted to post a message on her page indicating that she would not design websites for same-sex couples.
Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the six-justice majority, held that the web designer’s work constitutes speech and the state of Colorado cannot force her to express herself in a way that violates her deeply-held beliefs.
“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,” wrote Gorsuch. “But, as this Court has long held, the opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong.”
While Smith asked the justices to consider both a free-speech claim and a free-exercise claim, only the former was reviewed by the high court. The Biden administration sided with Colorado in an amicus brief, arguing Smith’s case does not belong in the same category as other cases involving compelled speech.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent and joined by the two other liberal justices, strongly disagreed with the majority opinion, arguing that the ruling was part of a broader pattern undermining minority rights.
“Around the country, there has been a backlash to the movement for liberty and equality for gender and sexual minorities,” Sotomayor wrote.
“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 added.
The gap between the majority and dissenting opinions was highlighted by Justice Gorsuch.
“It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case. Much of it focuses on the evolution of public accommodations laws,” Gorsuch wrote, “and the strides gay Americans have made towards securing equal justice.”
“And, no doubt, there is much to applaud here,” continued Gorsuch. “But none of this answers the question we face today: Can a State force someone who provides her own expressive services to abandon her conscience and speak its preferred message instead?”
The website designer lost in both district and circuit court before petitioning the Supreme Court. While the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Smith’s craft was “pure speech” and that Colorado was compelling speech through its anti-discrimination law, the judges in the majority argued that granting Smith an exemption “would necessarily relegate LGBT consumers to an inferior market because Appellants’ unique services are, by definition, unavailable elsewhere.”
According to Gorsuch, speakers do not shed their First Amendment protections by employing the corporate form to disseminate their speech. He also laid out several scenarios a ruling adverse to Smith could enable.
“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 message,” wrote Gorsuch. “Equally, the government could force a male website designer married to another man to design websites for an organization that advocates against same-sex marriage.”
The facts of the case bear a close resemblance to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a baker, Jack Phillips, who had objected to making custom cakes for same-sex couples.
In a 7-2 opinion penned by then-justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that by punishing Phillips, Colorado had violated his free exercise of religion. Kennedy explained that the commission had engaged in overt hostility towards Phillips’s religious beliefs in the process, but left the free-speech question unanswered.
“A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all,” argued Gorsuch Friday.