SCOTUS SIDES WITH FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN

 

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

A heterosexual woman, Lorie Smith, sued the state of Colorado to enjoin it from forcing her to create websites celebrating gay marriages.  A Colorado statute prohibits all “public accommodations” from discriminating on various bases, including sexual orientation.  Colorado defines “public accommodation to encompass virtually every business dealing with the public, including  web designers.

Ms. Smith stated she was happy to work with gays.  She was happy to create websites and creative graphics for them.  However, she refused to produce content that actively promoted or celebrated a gay lifestyle.  That, she said, violated her rights under our First Amendment to the Constitution.

The US District Court in Colorado disagreed with her, so she appealed to the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals.  That body also disagreed with her.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

My take:

This case sounds, on the surface, very much like a religious freedom case; it is not.  This case is purely about what is meant by freedom of speech.

In her promotional materials, Ms. Smith clearly states she will not publish a web design with statements that violate her beliefs.  Those beliefs may be religious beliefs, but the First Amendment is all about protecting your right to hold onto your beliefs and tell other people about those beliefs.

By its decision, the Supreme Court held, in a decision which should be applauded by all, that the State cannot force someone to say things they do not believe.  Colorado cannot force a straight person to create a website celebrating gay marriage.  The Supreme Court had earlier held that Massachusetts cannot force a Veterans’ Day parade to include gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, because that would require them to “alter the expressive content of their parade.”  The Supreme Court had also previously refused to force the Boy Scouts of America to include gay scoutmasters, holding doing so would “interfere with its choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs.

The bottom line here is that Ms. Smith is a private citizen.  The government cannot force her to promote causes it believes in.   

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis

A heterosexual woman, Lorie Smith, sued the state of Colorado to enjoin it from forcing her to create websites celebrating gay marriages.  A Colorado statute prohibits all “public accommodations” from discriminating on various bases, including sexual orientation.  Colorado defines “public accommodation to encompass virtually every business dealing with the public, including  web designers.

Ms. Smith stated she was happy to work with gays.  She was happy to create websites and creative graphics for them.  However, she refused to produce content that actively promoted or celebrated a gay lifestyle.  That, she said, violated her rights under our First Amendment to the Constitution.

The US District Court in Colorado disagreed with her, so she appealed to the 10^th Circuit Court of Appeals.  That body also disagreed with her.

The First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

Held: The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees.

My take:

This case sounds, on the surface, very much like a religious freedom case; it is not.  This case is purely about what is meant by freedom of speech.

In her promotional materials, Ms. Smith clearly states she will not publish a web design with statements that violate her beliefs.  Those beliefs may be religious beliefs, but the First Amendment is all about protecting your right to hold onto your beliefs and tell other people about those beliefs.

By its decision, the Supreme Court held, in a decision which should be applauded by all, that the State cannot force someone to say things they do not believe.  Colorado cannot force a straight person to create a website celebrating gay marriage.  The Supreme Court had earlier held that Massachusetts cannot force a Veterans’ Day parade to include gay, lesbian and bisexual individuals, because that would require them to “alter the expressive content of their parade.”  The Supreme Court had also previously refused to force the Boy Scouts of America to include gay scoutmasters, holding doing so would “interfere with its choice not to propound a point of view contrary to its beliefs.

The bottom line here is that Ms. Smith is a private citizen.  The government cannot force her to promote causes in which she does not believe.