The Supreme Court will decide whether or not a Colorado woman may be compelled to violate her religious convictions about marriage in a significant case that will bring the issue of religious liberty back into the national limelight during the autumn term.
A Colorado state statute that restricts an artist’s ability to decline creative services that clash with her religious convictions is being challenged by Lorie Smith, a small business owner and artist.
Smith, the plaintiff in the case 303 Creative vs. Elenis, is suing state officials in an effort to overturn a Colorado law that would force her to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages, which she opposes as a Christian. This includes Aubrey Elenis, the director of the state’s civil rights division.
The conservative legal charity Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which also defended fellow Coloradan Jack Phillips in the well-known Masterpiece Cakeshop case that went to the Supreme Court in 2018, is also representing Smith.
According to Matt Sharp, senior attorney for ADF, “Colorado is attempting to force [Smith] to celebrate and produce bespoke work for weddings that she doesn’t agree with.”
He said, “At the end of the day, this is about whether or not our Constitution protects artists like Lorie, who just want to be able to serve everyone but not generate all messages.
Smith has been operating her Denver-based graphic and internet design company, 303 Creative, since 2012.
Smith’s testimony states that she felt called by God to create unique wedding websites for heterosexual couples in order to “promote and celebrate his plan for marriage.” Smith explained on her website and to prospective customers why she thinks biblical marriage is sacred.
According to Smith’s website, “I have always attempted to glorify God in how I conduct this company as a Christian who thinks that God given me the creative skills that are displayed via this firm.” But I am picky about the messages I produce or spread because of my beliefs.
Smith claims to serve “everyone,” but she makes a point of avoiding spreading messages or ideas “that are discordant with my Christian convictions.”
According to the lawsuit, Smith would “gladly” design for customers who identify as LGBTQ “so long as the bespoke graphics and websites” do not infringe upon her religious convictions, just as she would not design for clients who support abortion or sexual immorality.
But Smith contends that the Colorado statute that penalized Jack Phillips for refusing to make a cake honoring same-sex marriage is also the one that restricts her ability to practice her religion.
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) prohibits discrimination in public places of accommodation, including on the basis of marital status and sexual orientation.
Smith said that CADA violated her rights by making it unlawful for her to reject to develop websites that honor same-sex unions, according to the first lawsuit submitted by ADF.
Smith’s lawsuit states that Lorie and 303 Creative are not providing their services to design, produce, and publish wedding websites that reflect their intended message celebrating and supporting marriage as an institution between one man and one woman “simply because of Colorado law.”
In July 2021, Smith appealed the statute before the US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit while being represented by ADF. Chief Judge Timothy Tymkovich disagreed with the court of appeals’ judgment even though it was against her.
The majority’s position, according to Tymkovich, is “unusual,” and the Constitution “protects Ms. Smith from the government ordering her what to say,” he said.
Smith subsequently filed an appeal with the Supreme Court, which in February approved her request for a review.
This term, ADF will present Smith’s case to the Supreme Court on the basis that the Colorado legislation infringes upon her right to free expression.
According to CADA, it is discriminatory and unlawful for companies to “publish, circulate, issue, display, post, or mail any written, electronic, or printed communication, notice, or advertisement” that implies a customer’s business is “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable” because of their sexual orientation or marital status.
According to Sharp, “our position is that everyone has the right to free expression.” No one, not even artists or Americans, should ever be compelled by the government to express an opinion they do not share.
“In Lorie’s case, the state of Colorado is abusing its legal authority to compel her to convey marriage-related messages she doesn’t agree with. For a very long time, Lorie has helped individuals from many walks of life and backgrounds. But not all of the messages are created by her,” Sharp noted.
She wants the flexibility to be able to construct websites with personalized graphics that celebrate weddings in line with her conception of marriage, he said.
Jack Phillips may benefit from comparing this to the cake case.
Smith’s situation is quite similar to the well-known Masterpiece Cakeshop case, in which a same-sex couple sued a Colorado baker named Jack Phillips for refusing to make a cake commemorating their marriage.
ADF defended Phillips in state court when the couple filed a discrimination lawsuit against him. The Supreme Court heard the case in the end, and it decided in Phillips’ favor by a 7-2 margin.
Sharp claims that the decision did not address the central problem of the case.
Sharp said that Phillips’ religious views on marriage were linked by a number of Colorado commissioners and government representatives to being “no different from those who justified the Holocaust,” which was the basis for the Supreme Court’s reasoning.
He said that the Supreme Court’s decision in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop and Jack Phillips was based in part on the state of Colorado’s animosity against Phillips’ views on marriage, particularly during the hearings.
The Commission’s handling of Phillips’ case, according to Justice Anthony Kennedy’s judgment in the case, “showed elements of a manifest and unacceptable animosity against the genuine religious convictions prompting his opposition,”
This, according to Sharp, prevented the Supreme Court from having to decide whether Jack’s artistic expression via cake design is protected by the First Amendment on the basis of free speech.
When Masterpiece Cakeshop won at the Supreme Court, it was promptly sued once again for refusing to make a cake honoring a gender identity change.
In the case of Scardina v. Masterpiece Cakeshop, ADF presented oral arguments on behalf of Phillips before the Colorado Court of Appeals on Wednesday in the afternoon.
Phillips would benefit if the Supreme Court ruled favorably in Smith’s case.
The issue raised in Masterpiece, “Does the Constitution safeguard the freedom of artists like Lorie, Jack, and others to produce accordance with their ideas and not be penalized or pressured by the government to speak differently,” is directly addressed by Lorie’s case. said Sharp.
He finished, saying, “We are hoping that the Supreme Court will uphold this and that the decision will also aid Jack and other artists around the nation who are suffering similar threats to their free expression.
“A victory for Lorie really is a win for everyone,” Sharp told CNA.
Should the government compel a lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender website designer to create a piece of work for a Catholic group that want to honor their understanding of marriage? Or should the government have the authority to compel a Democratic ad agency to work on a Republican candidate’s behalf? I believe we would all respond, “Of course not,” he said.
“The government should never have the power to require artists to produce messages honoring things or holding beliefs they disagree with.”
Distinguished Jesuit priest refers to incidents as homophobia
Following the news of Smith’s case, Jesuit Father James Martin, editor-in-chief of America Magazine, expressed his opinions on Twitter.
“Same-sex marriage is the one issue that appears to trouble the consciences of these few Catholic and Christian business executives. Don’t refer to this as a matter of “religious liberty,” then. Let’s call it what it is: homophobia, Martin stated in a lengthy series of tweets that sparked intense debate on the social media site.
“Catholic business owners may refuse services to Protestants under the pretense of’religious liberty,’ and, more generally, Christians could refuse services to Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, atheists, agnostics, and so on,” he said.
Respectfully, as a homosexual Catholic myself, I disagree, a commenter responded. People shouldn’t be forced to say anything they don’t want to, including, “Congratulations on your marriage! “, in a free society.
He said, “Even when our consciences lead us in different paths, gay Catholics and their friends should stand out for the rights of conscience of their fellow Christians.
In support of Smith’s claim, the U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops (USCCB) and the Colorado Catholic Conference have filed an amicus brief.