Supreme Court: Web designer can refuse same-sex wedding sites under First Amendment
The Supreme Court ruled Friday that an evangelical Christian web designer could not be forced to work on wedding sites celebrating same-sex couples because it would violate her First Amendment right against compelled speech.
The 6-3 decision settled the 2016 case brought by Lorie Smith, 39, who sued the Colorado Civil Rights Commission over the state’s anti-discrimination laws that barred her from advertising that she won’t create websites for couples of the same sex.
But the high court found that to compel Smith to make sites “celebrating other marriages she does not” would be “an impermissible abridgment of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely,” Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the majority.
Under Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, businesses are barred from denying the public goods and services based on race, gender, sexual orientation and religion — and they can’t post notices doing so either.
But Smith — a married mother of one who owns graphic design firm 303 Creative LLC — has claimed the Centennial State law clashes with her right to refuse business that conflicts with her religious beliefs.
Smith has maintained that she doesn’t have a problem working with LBGTQ clients on projects unrelated to marriage and has done so in the past.
While anti-discrimination laws “play a vital role in realizing civil rights of all Americans,” in this case forcing Smith would set a precedent allowing “government to force all manner of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services involve speech to speak what they do not believe on pain of penalty,” Gorsuch wrote.
“The nation’s answer is tolerance, not coercion,” the justice added in overturning lower court rulings against Smith.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said the decision marked “a sad day in American constitutional law.”
“By issuing this new license to discriminate … the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status,” she wrote, claiming that under the Colorado law, Smith’s “freedom of speech is not abridged in any meaningful sense, factual or legal.
“Petitioners remain free to advocate the idea that same-sex marriage betrays God’s laws,” Sotomayor went on. “Even if Smith believes God is calling her to do so through her for-profit company, the company need not hold out its goods or services to the public at large. Many filmmakers, visual artists, and writers never do.”
Smith’s lawyer Kristen Waggoner lauded the ruling, saying the high court had “rightly reaffirmed that the government can’t force Americans to say things they don’t believe.”
Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser claimed in a statement that the ruling “will permit businesses to turn away LGBTQ customers just by claiming that they sell expressive or artistic services. This deeply concerning opinion is far out of step with the will of the American people and American values. The opinion represents a radical departure from decades of Court precedent and fails to uphold the principle of ‘Equal Justice for All’ inscribed on the U.S. Supreme Court building.”
President Biden echoed that language in his own reaction, saying: “While the Court’s decision only addresses expressive original designs, I’m deeply concerned that the decision could invite more discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans. More broadly, today’s decision weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations – including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith, and women.”
The 303 Creative case expanded on another landmark Supreme Court decision out of Colorado, the 2018 ruling in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the court ruled that baker Jack Phillips could refuse to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple on religious grounds.
On Thursday, in an unrelated case, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of another evangelical Christian, reinstating Gerald Groff’s lawsuit against the US Postal Service for forcing him to work Sundays when his beliefs required him to observe the Sabbath.
The court said businesses had to accommodate requests for religious accommodation unless it forced them to incur significant costs.
