The Supreme Court’s landmark decision supporting Lorie Smith underscores the critical balance between free speech and anti-discrimination laws.
At a Glance
- The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of Lorie Smith’s free speech rights.
- Colorado agreed to pay over $1.5 million in legal fees to Lorie Smith.
- Justice Gorsuch emphasized public accommodation laws must protect free speech.
- This case aligns with the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop decision.
Supreme Court Supports Religious Liberty
A Colorado web designer, Lorie Smith, faced a Supreme Court battle over her decision not to create websites for same-sex weddings, arguing that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act violated her First Amendment rights. Her victory marks a significant reaffirmation of free speech rights. The Court’s 6-3 ruling allows businesses to refuse service based on owners’ personal beliefs. As a result, Colorado agreed to pay more than $1.5 million in Smith’s legal fees.
The Supreme Court’s decision has similarities with the 2018 Masterpiece Cakeshop case, reinforcing a pattern of recognizing religious liberty within the business community. Justice Neil Gorsuch penned the majority opinion, highlighting the necessity for public accommodation laws to adhere to constitutional protections.
The Supreme Court will hear arguments over whether a graphic designer in Colorado has a First Amendment right to refuse to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings based on her religion. A state law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. https://t.co/uVKSssdWYR
— The New York Times (@nytimes) December 5, 2022
Support from Alliance Defending Freedom
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) played a pivotal role in supporting Smith’s case, celebrating the decision as a victory for free speech. ADF CEO Kristen Waggoner stated, “Billions of people around the world believe that marriage is the union of one man and one woman and that men and women are biologically distinct. No government has the right to silence individuals for expressing these ideas or to punish those who decline to express different views.”
Lorie Smith took legal action after facing restrictions on expressing her content preferences publicly, fearing compelled speech that conflicted with her beliefs. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the notion that individuals cannot be forced to convey messages that contrast with their conscience. Smith’s victory means more than personal success; it impacts Americans with differing beliefs.
Major victory for free speech and religious liberty today – proud of my wife Erin, who litigated this case https://t.co/ZKl6Y0zUOe
— Josh Hawley (@HawleyMO) June 30, 2023
Dissenting Opinions and Wider Implications
Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, contending that the ruling grants a constitutional right for businesses to refuse service to protected classes, which she opposes. Nevertheless, Smith expressed gratitude, saying, “This is a win not just for me but for all Americans—for those who share my beliefs and for those who hold different views.”
The impact on Colorado taxpayers, who will bear the expense of these legal fees, raises questions about the broader implications of this ruling, potentially influencing future cases involving religious beliefs and state laws.
