Washington — The Supreme Court on Friday ruled in favor of a Colorado graphic artist who does not want to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, finding the First Amendment prohibits the state from forcing the designer to express messages that are contrary to her closely held religious beliefs.
The court ruled 6-3 in favor of the designer, Lorie Smith. All six conservative justices sided with the designer, while the court’s three liberals dissented. Justice Neil Gorsuch delivered the majority opinion.
“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” Gorsuch wrote.
Justice Sonia Sotomayor read her dissenting opinion, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, from the bench — the second time she has done so this term.
The decision from the justices is the latest in a string of successes for religious organizations and individuals who have sought relief from the high court and its conservative majority. It also resolves a lingering question, left unanswered since 2018, of whether states can compel artists to express messages that go against their religious beliefs in applying their public-accommodation laws.
The Supreme Court has now said states cannot, as forcing artists to create speech would violate their free speech rights.
The case was brought by Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic designer who said her religious beliefs prevent her from creating custom websites for same-sex weddings. Smith started her web design business, 303 Creative, roughly a decade ago, and wants to expand to create websites for weddings. In addition to wanting to design websites to express God’s “design for marriage as a long-long union between one man and one woman,” Smith also wants to post a message explaining why she cannot make custom websites for same-sex weddings, which states that doing so compromises her Christian beliefs and tells “a story about marriage that contradicts God’s true story of marriage.”
But refusing to design custom websites for a same-sex wedding, and detailing why she plans to do so, could violate Colorado’s public-accommodation law.
The state’s law prohibits businesses open to the public from refusing service because of sexual orientation and announcing their intent to do so. Smith has not yet created any wedding websites or been asked to do so for a same-sex wedding, but argues Colorado’s law violates her free speech rights since the state is forcing her to express a message she disagrees with.
Smith filed a lawsuit against the state, but lost in the lower courts. A federal appeals court said that while her wedding websites are “pure speech,” the state had a compelling interest in ensuring access to her services.
Smith appealed to the Supreme Court, and the justices considered during oral arguments in December whether states like Colorado can, in applying their anti-discrimination laws, compel an artist to express a message they disagree with.
The latest Supreme Court dispute over LGBTQ rights
The dispute was one of several to land before the justices in the wake of its 2015 landmark decision establishing the right to same-sex marriage that raised the question of whether a business owner can refuse service to LGBTQ customers because of their religious beliefs.
In 2018, the high court sided with a Colorado baker who was sued after he refused to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding, but did not address whether a business can deny services to LGBTQ peple. Instead, the Supreme Court said the state’s Civil Rights Commission was hostile to baker Jack Phillips’ religious beliefs in violation of the First Amendment.
In the years after, the Supreme Court declined to clarify whether states could force religious business owners to create messages that violate their conscience. But the court’s rightward shift, solidified by former President Donald Trump’s appointment of three justices, raised concerns that the Supreme Court would erode LGBTQ rights by allowing businesses to deny services to LGBTQ customers.
