The case arose when the state of Colorado censored graphic designer Lorie Smith and her business, 303 Creative. Ms. Smith is a Christian who serves all people but can’t express or promote all messages. She wanted to start designing websites that celebrate weddings between a husband and wife, but Colorado officials demanded that she also celebrate same-sex weddings in violation of her faith.
In other words, Colorado told Ms. Smith to speak in its preferred way or to stay silent on the topic of marriage. But the First Amendment ensures that each citizen—not the government—makes these decisions for herself. To avoid this government censorship, Alliance Defending Freedom sued Colorado on behalf of Ms. Smith and her business.
The Court’s landmark ruling leaves no doubt that governments can’t order individuals—including business owners in the marketplace—to express unwanted messages.
This freedom isn’t limited to one side of one politically charged debate. It’s for people with all kinds of views—liberal, conservative, or anywhere in between. So this ruling, which protects a woman of faith who believes God created marriage as the unique union of a man and a woman, equally shields an LGBT graphic designer who doesn’t want to promote a rally opposing a local Pride festival, or a Democratic marketing consultant who objects to creating a Republican campaign.
But don’t miss the fact that Ms. Smith serves everyone, including LGBT customers. Everyone involved in the case—from Colorado officials to the court itself—agreed on that point. Ms. Smith’s decisions to create speech always turn on what message is requested, never on who requests it.
Nothing in the court’s decision authorizes business owners to refuse to serve a class of people because of who they are. In fact, the decision permits governments to continue punishing that sort of discrimination and ensuring everyone has access to basic goods and services. What governments can’t do is misuse nondiscrimination laws to compel speech. That crosses the constitutional line.
What this means is that the court’s decision is a critical, but focused, ruling. It protects business owners only when they decline a request because of the message sought.
The decision to create (or not create) speech is treated differently under the law because the First Amendment gives speech a privileged place. Our Founders knew that speech is inextricably tied to the conscience—our innate sense of what is right, good, and beautiful.
Putting the government’s words in a speaker’s mouth or a state official’s views in the artist’s paintbrush is offensive and dangerous. For most, speech and art flow from their mind and soul. And though it seems governments are everywhere nowadays, they have no place in our heads or our hearts. If governments force us to express what we disbelieve at our core, they push us into hypocrisy and compel us to betray ourselves.
Freedom of speech is particularly needed in our polarized society. The committed Democrat thinks most Republican talking points are false rubbish. And the fervent Republican feels the same about his Democratic neighbor. This cultural context drives many toward Russian novelist Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s pledge to “Live Not By Lies,” a heartfelt exhortation to his communist-bound countrymen to “refuse to say what we do not think.”
Had the Supreme Court ruled the other way in 303 Creative, governments would have had free rein to force any of us to express what we don’t believe. Thankfully, the Supreme Court stayed true to our cherished tradition of free speech. That’s something we all should celebrate.
