On the final day of its session, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Lorie Smith, a Christian Colorado website designer who refused to create a website for a gay wedding. The court’s 6-3 ruling said Smith could not be compelled to create speech that violates her beliefs.
Smith, an artist and owner of the design studio 303 Creative, specializes in graphic and website design. Her passion lies in visually conveying messages and she established her business to align her work with causes close to her heart, such as supporting children with disabilities, promoting overseas missions, aiding animal shelters, and honoring veterans.
Smith’s work includes websites celebrating traditional marriage between a man and a woman. That defied Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, which prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. The law requires her to create designs that contradict her deeply held Christian beliefs about marriage. Smith decided to challenge the law. Alliance Defending Freedom took up her cause to fight for her free speech rights.
The majority of justices, in the 6-3 decision, agreed that the government cannot compel Smith to create speech that she fundamentally disagrees with.
“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,” the opinion, written by Justice Neil Gorsuch, says.
Gorsuch wrote that if the court had ruled for the State of Colorado, it would put Smith in an untenable position: “If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs, sanctions that may include compulsory participation in remedial training, filing periodic compliance reports . . . and paying monetary fines. As surely as Ms. Smith seeks to engage in protected First Amendment speech, Colorado seeks to compel speech Ms. Smith does not wish to provide.”
The three who dissented were Justices Elena Fagan, Sonia Sotomayor, and Katanji Brown Jackson, all deeply leftist.
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.”
Despite the existence of Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, the court ruled that it cannot be used to force individuals to express messages that go against their sincerely held beliefs.
Mainstream news outlets and advocates for LGBTQ+ rights argue that the court’s decision undermines legal protections for the LGBTQ+ community.
Supporters of the court’s decision contend that it upholds the principles of free speech and religious freedom. They argue that artists like Smith should have the autonomy to decide which projects they take on, based on the messages they are being asked to express, rather than being compelled by the government to create art that conflicts with their beliefs.
The Alaska Family Council in December joined family policy councils across the country to file a legal brief supporting Smith.
“Whether it’s Colorado, Washington, D.C., or Alaska, we’re proud to stand in defense of free speech and religious liberty,” said AFC President Jim Minnery.
In 2018, Colorado cake baker and designer won his case at the Supreme Court after he was sued for refusing to bake and decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple. He is now fighting a lawsuit because he won’t bake a cake celebrating a “sexual transition.” That case is working its way to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Great. Freaks are just trying to tie everything up in court. I can remember as far back as when I was a kid, there were signs in businesses saying they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone. Then they came out with signs on doors saying no shirt no shoes no service. The courts are just affirming what they’ve always known.
Like when you were a kid and you didn’t have to serve black folks in your business. The Courts have ruled that you do have to serve black people, but at least they’ve saved you from having to be nice to gay people, let alone provide them a service. You must be celebrating since even if you don’t have a business, you can patronize places that will be free of the gays.
So freedom of choice is supposed to be controlled by the feds? Like it or not and individual or a private business is allowed to associate with whomever they choose.
Not really.
You can’t refuse to do business just because the customer is a woman.
“they reserve the right to refuse service to anyone” So women aren’t “anyone”?
I can refuse the right to do business because I have a booger up my nose. If not, shoot me or put me in a camp and take all my possessions. I don’t need anyone’s permission to not do business.
ummm ‘black’= skin color, ‘gay’= behavior. All behaviors are created equal?
Just because it is posted doesn’t make it legal. That’s what court is for.
When I was a kid, I had to run from black thugs to get to and from school. You have no idea. Got beat down in class as teachers looked the other way.
I used to patronize restaurants that were mask mandatory. Same thing. I don’t go eat in Harlem though.
Doesn’t seem to be all that controversial to me.
You can’t turn away gay customers simply because they are gay, but they can’t force you create disgusting gay content. Though I would wholesale eliminate the concept of ‘protected classes’ – private businesses should be allowed to turn down business from anyone for any reason, or nobody at all. Especially when the government seems to be in the business of manufacturing brand new ‘protected classes’ out of thin air.
Still, this seems like a reasonable short-term compromise.
This surprises me. I’d expected them to toss it on lack of standing.
First point: if you’re a gay couple, why go to someone you know is religious and ask them to do this for you unless you’re looking for a lawsuit. There are plenty of other businesses that would gladly do this for you.
Second point: why do Christians use their religion as a point to oppose anything having to do with homosexuals? Last I checked, the New Testament says little or nothing directly about it and Jesus certainly never said a thing about the subject, so WTF? I assume they are using something from the Old Testament? If that’s the case, then they should stand by ALL of what’s in the pentateuch, if you know what I mean? Such a belief shouldn’t be ala carte.
cman I completely agree on your first point. People, who seek out businesses simply because they are certain of a refusal and then make trouble, are loathsome to me. It is to punish via the state for daring to challenge their view of the world. In essence a form of tyranny from the “diverse and tolerant”.
Second the bible is very specific about marriage being between an man and a woman, to perpetuate mankind and establish tranquility. Most Christians I know respect individuals as a person and don’t care if someone is playing for the other team. That’s between them and the good Lord. What is objectionable is the behavior of some, demanding that their lifestyle be celebrated, re-affirmed and held in higher/special regard, while there is no such allowance for a religious person. It is not enough to live and let live, but like any narcissist it has to be all about them all the time and total submission is demanded.
But I’m not talking about the Bible in general, I’m talking about the Christian bible, the New Testament. What I think many Christians are saying on this point is that they are objecting based on Old Testament statements about homosexuality. It would be nice if they were at least honest about it, but I do see what you’re trying to say.
I would also say, however, that for the vast majority of historical human history, the religious DID have their way exclusively, whilst any other minorities (be they racial, sexual, whatever) were very much not on an even playing field. I don’t see what most gay people are asking for is special rights, just equal rights. Perhaps we may disagree on this point? I do see your point about the seeming demand that their worldview be celebrated and I also tire of the constant pride events, but it doesn’t seem like too much of a burden for me to deal with, though I understand it may be for others.
cman, you seem to be under the impression that the New Testament is the only scripture Christians use. Christianity considers the entire bible. The Old Testament lays the foundation and without it Jesus would make no sense. Jesus himself frequently refers to the prophets and declared that He has not come to abolish the law (the law of Moses 10 commandments etc.) but fulfill the law. Many times Jesus healed individuals and then admonished them to “sin no more”, without the old testament there is no context for “sin”.
Please define equal rights.
It appears that anyone regardless of orientation can speak in public, run for office and hold office, can vote, own property, decide where to live and whom to associate with. They are protected from illegal search and seizure and may carry a firearm if they so desire.
In my opinion radical gay activist have made it clear that they demand special treatment flaunting their lewd behavior in public with impunity (naked men on bikes in Seattle at the pride parade for instance). They have further declared the nations children their property to use for their ideological experiments without parental input or rights.
Roger that taxpayer. The alphabet cult that demands toddlers be taught about sex & supports gender transition surgery for vulnerable easily manipulated children says they’re coming for our children & we should believe them.
For me, it would have nothing to do with Christianity. I simply need to work on projects that I can relate to. If I can’t get creative on something, I’m not going to attempt to create it. It’s that simple.
And it took a effort all the way to the supreams to settle the first amendment. Look at the cost and time it took for something most normal people already knew because it was taught in school. Waste of time and money.
And it took a effort all the way to the supreams to settle the first amendment. Look at the cost and time it took for something most normal people already knew because it was taught in school. Waste of time and money.
Wow, the Supreme Court actually ruled that freedom of association is actually a thing?
Who’d have thunk it, in this degenerate day and age?
Right. The Elks lodge doesn’t have to admit you if you’re black or whatever. McDonald’s has to fry you a burger. You got it.
God bless the righteous.
What an opportunity for homosexuals to start their own website design studios. Gay weddings only. Then, we can sue them when they refuse to design wedding sites for straights.
Once the business owner starts working on the a site and does internet searches / researching information on his computers they be infected forever with filth ………..
just speaking for a friend I heard did this once. : l
Such people kept me in business when I repaired computers.
At issue is the absolute liberty to contract your labor in the fifty certified states. BAR card carriers do not have expressly delegated US Constitutional authority to contract nor compel your labor since that is best described as slavery. Next?
Just another case of bullying businesses to applaud someone who they find offensive to their own beliefs. Nobody should be forced to serve anyone, and a reason is not necessary. Everyone has a choice of where they can spend their money for services and likewise a business should be able to make their own decisions regarding clients. The services provided by someone being forced to serve you would most likely be unsatisfactory anyway. To seek out businesses that you know to be less receptive to serving your type in order to sue them is counterproductive. A business should not be required to have a rainbow flag to avoid lawsuits. This is a free country, and freedom is equally distributed. Small business have been an easy target for these groups because they seldom have attorneys on retainer to protect them from these wealthy hate groups.
Remember the lunch counter days of the 60s? Do you want that? Maybe they won’t serve you because you have freckles.
That is every person’s, and every business’s, right, Greg.
Racism is irrelevant. If I choose to not associate with blacks, or with Indians, or with Orientals, that is my right, your or the wokesters’ disapproval of it notwithstanding.
Yes. Associate. But not business. Only if they are against your religion. Slippery slope
It’s called civil rights. Where ya been?
Racism is always relevant.
Thank God for the Supreme Court Justices we have. Bidens next move will be to pack the court as it is a “stumbling bag of sand” for everything He so feverishly tries to do.
He just cant seem to get a break as they always seem to rule He is not following the law….Imagine that!
My guess is He spends at least an hour a day stumbling around the white house lawn(not near the rose bushes) shaking his fist and cussing the Justices that wont go along with his crazy ideas.
If you have a problem with this ruling, stop a moment, and consider how you would feel if the two sides were reversed. What if the web designer was gay and was contacted by a customer to create a website for an anti gay group. Would you still be in support of the web designer? Why not? Take away the gay or religious aspects of the case and it becomes clear that it was a situation where a private business did not want to do business with someone else. And it doesn’t matter why. Our Constitution allows for an individual to choose who to do business with or even who to hang around with. In the long run, this is a victory for any citizen, regardless.
The constitution doesn’t allow for some decisions based on race or sex though.
Wrong, Greg.
Freedom of association is an absolute and fundamental right, even if our increasingly twisted and totalitarian government denies it, and refuses to allow us to exercise that right. Every person has the right to associate, or to not associate, with ANY other person, for ANY reason, bar nothing.
I’m referring to businesses and racism.
It makes no difference, Greg.
Freedom of association is an inalienable right, without which there are no other rights at all. It does NOT matter what some totalitarian and evil government claims or demands. Rights are NOT dependent on governmental decrees!
When it comes to law there is. If my religion is against gays, I don’t have to work for you if you’re gay.
Nope. That isn’t what freedom of association means in the eyes of the law. Yes you can choose what club you join, and it’s members. You can’t refuse to fry someone a burger based on religion, creed, sex or race. Case law……THE BILL OF RIGHTS!!!!!!!!!!!!
Explain. Which sections are you quoting?
The 14th I believe.
Try Title II of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.
Equal rights under the law. Back to law school for you.
You still have no legal validation of your claim. The Constitution allows for individuals and private businesses to associate with or without anyone they see fit. There are no laws forcing a private business to accept specific customers.
Back to law school for YOU.
Look up case law.
It’s called civil rights. People have them.
So, according to you the ‘civil rights’ of any random customer trumps the actual Constitutionally granted civil rights of the store owner.
And remember that we’re discussing privately owned businesses NOT places such as city, county, state, or federal offices.
What constitution are you reading? LOL
The cake baker just didn’t have any of those cake topper statues that were fat and ugly with pink or green hair. What’s this they them theirs’s excuse? No clip art?
Against their religion.
Polly, yes.
Comments are closed.