Supreme Court supports Christian designer, protects religious freedom.

In a Landmark Victory for Free Speech, Supreme Court Strikes Down Colorado Law

In a historic decision, the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of free speech by striking down a Colorado law that would have punished a Christian graphic designer for refusing to create a website for a same-sex wedding that conflicted with her religious beliefs.

In a 6-3 decision in the case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the high court cited the First Amendment, asserting that Lorie Smith cannot be compelled by state civil rights law to design websites that contradict her deeply-held religious convictions. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized that “no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution.”

“The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees,” Gorsuch wrote.

Smith, the graphic designer, expressed her willingness to work with individuals of all sexual orientations but objected to being compelled to create wedding websites for same-sex couples due to her deeply-rooted beliefs.

“There are some messages I can’t create no matter who requests them,” Smith said in December.

Smith had delayed expanding her business out of concern that her beliefs would clash with Colorado’s public accommodations law. Colorado argued that Smith’s refusal amounted to discrimination against same-sex couples and contended that the law governs conduct rather than speech in the context of running a business in the state.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP

“Under Colorado’s logic, the government may compel anyone who speaks for pay on a given topic to accept all commissions on that same topic — no matter the message — if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait,” Gorsuch wrote on behalf of the majority.

Justice Sotomayor Dissents

Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, denouncing the ruling as “profoundly wrong” and arguing that the Constitution does not grant the right to refuse service to a disfavored group.

“Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people. The Supreme Court of the United States declares that a particular kind of business, though open to the public, has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. The Court does so for the first time in its history,” Sotomayor wrote.

“The immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status,” she added.

Gorsuch took the opportunity to criticize Sotomayor’s dissent in his majority opinion.

“It is difficult to read the dissent and conclude we are looking at the same case,” Gorsuch wrote.

The central question at hand is whether a state can compel an individual who provides expressive services to abandon their conscience and convey a message they disagree with. Gorsuch argued that the dissent misrepresents the facts of the case and even contradicts its own position.

This is a breaking news story and will be updated.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases