Supreme Court supports web designer’s right to decline pro-LGBT messages.

The Supreme Court Protects First Amendment Rights of Website Designer

The Supreme Court made a significant ruling on Thursday in favor of a Colorado-based website designer, recognizing that the state’s anti-discrimination law would infringe on her business and violate her First Amendment rights.

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

Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the majority opinion in the case of 303 Creative v. Elenis, emphasized the importance of protecting individual conscience and freedom of expression.

Divided Opinions

The 6-3 majority opinion was supported by the court’s Republican-appointed justices, while liberal Justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented.

“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,”

Sotomayor expressed her dissent, highlighting concerns about potential discrimination against protected groups.

Protecting Artistic Freedom

The lawsuit challenging Colorado’s anti-discrimination law was brought by a religious business owner who considers herself an artist and wishes to exercise her creative talents without compromising her Christian beliefs.

Lorie Smith, the plaintiff, argued that the state’s public accommodations law prevents her from creating custom websites for heterosexual couples, which is her primary passion.

“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 underlying message–if the topic somehow implicates a customer’s statutorily protected trait,”

Gorsuch pointed out the potential dangers of such a principle, which could force artists and speechwriters to express messages they do not believe in.

Implications and Questions

During the oral arguments, concerns were raised about the potential consequences of a ruling in favor of Smith. The Biden administration attorney argued that it could enable discrimination based on sexist stereotypes or other forms of prejudice.

Sotomayor questioned where the line would be drawn, expressing worries about discrimination against interracial or disabled couples seeking marriage.

This is an ongoing story, and further updates will be provided.

*As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases