Christian Website Designer Responds to Free Speech Win at Supreme Court

'The government can't force Americans to say something they don't believe,' attorney says.

Lorie Smith, a Christian graphic artist and website designer in Colorado, prepares to speak to supporters outside the Supreme Court in Washington on Dec. 5, 2022. Andrew Harnik/AP Photo

On June 30, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Colorado Christian website designer who refused to create a website promoting same-sex weddings.

As The Epoch Times reported on Sept. 27, 2021, Lorie Smith—the owner of a Colorado-based web design company called 303 Creative—had asked the justices to overturn a decision of the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in Denver. They accepted. Smith was represented by Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), an Arizona-based public interest law firm specializing in First Amendment and religious freedom litigation.

In recent years, ADF has won 13 Supreme Court victories, including the Masterpiece Cakeshop Ltd v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case in 2018, which upheld the right of a Colorado cake artist Jack Phillips to uphold his religious beliefs when making custom wedding cakes.

As reported by The Epoch Times on Feb. 22, 2022, the High Court determined that its consideration of the case would be limited to one question: “Whether applying a public accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

Lawyers for Defendant Aubrey Elenis, director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division, told the Court they shouldn’t accept the case, arguing that Smith hadn’t proven “a credible threat of enforcement“ because ”the record contains no evidence that anyone has asked the Company to create a website for a same-sex wedding” in the first place.

On June 30, the majority of the justices disagreed in a 6–3 vote.

On her website, Smith explains that “since filing a lawsuit” to protect her First Amendment rights in 2016, she has been “bombarded with many messages.”

“Some have been supportive, but many more have been hate-filled and deeply unsettling,” she said. Other messages have “shown that there is a lot of misunderstanding and misinformation about the case.”

Rather than just believing everything people see and hear, Smith asks people to find and review “reputable sources of information about the case” in order to “make an informed judgment. She even provides a link to sourced information.

To those who have filled her inbox “with vile, hate-filled messages,” Smith suggests an effort to disagree civilly.

“That is the mark of a healthy and free society,” she says.

After the ruling, Smith expressed gratitude for the Supreme Court’s decision in allowing her to create custom-designed websites that are consistent with her beliefs “without the fear” of having the state of Colorado punishing her.

“This is a victory not just for me, but for all of us,” Smith said in a statement posted on social media by ADF. “Whether you share my beliefs or completely disagree with them, free speech is for everyone. The government should not force anyone to say something we don’t believe, and the Court’s decision means that we are all more free today than we were yesterday. We can think, create, imagine, and speak consistent with the core of who we are.”

In delivering the opinion of the Court (pdf), Supreme Court Justice Neil Gorsuch said, “Like many States, Colorado has a law forbidding businesses from engaging in discrimination when they sell goods and services to the public. Laws along these lines have done much to secure the civil rights of all Americans. But in this particular case, Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms. It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe. The question we face is whether that course violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”

‘We’re Overjoyed’

Jonathan Scruggs, vice president of litigation strategies at ADF, says, “The Supreme Court got it right.”

Jonathan Scruggs, Vice President of Litigation Strategies at Alliance Defending Freedom. With permission from Alliance Defending Freedom

“It’s a great day for the First Amendment,” Scruggs told The Epoch Times in response to the ruling. “The government can’t force Americans to say something they don’t believe. The Court has affirmed this principle again and again and again in other contexts and just applied it here. We are overjoyed.”

The bottom line, Scruggs said, was the ruling will protect not just Smith but other people of other beliefs and faiths, and even those of no beliefs or faith.

“The government shouldn’t have the power to target people’s ideas and expression and exclude them from the marketplace.”

Asked if this ruling will have an impact on future cases regarding other forms of forced language and expression, like pronouns, Scruggs said, “Absolutely.”

“It goes right to that argument that the government can’t force someone to say something they don’t believe is true,” Scruggs proposed, adding that the opinion will. “have a strong impact” in protecting people in schools and in the workplace for being forced to use language that goes against their beliefs.

“It strikes down a lot of the arguments used in all of these cases, that the government can override your right to control what you say, and the Supreme Court just resoundingly rejected that argument,” Scruggs said.

In his opinion, Gorsuch also noted that, under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, “state officials or private citizens may bring actions to enforce the law,” and that “a variety of penalties can follow, including cease and desist orders and fines of up to $500 per violation. In some cases violators were required to take other “affirmative action[s],” such as “participation in mandatory educational programs and the submission of ongoing compliance reports to state officials.”

“One of the remedies”

Scruggs confirmed to The Epoch Times that “one of the remedies” in Colorado’s legal arsenal, which can be used against those found guilty of violating the state’s anti-discrimination laws, is “you have to go through reeducation.”

Scruggs noted that the Supreme Court mentions this possibility in its reference to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case.

“So that’s one of their remedies,” Scruggs said. “You have to sit there and have your beliefs ’re-educated.'”

Ultimately, Scruggs says, “Anti-discrimination laws and the First Amendment can co-exist.”

“You’re going to see  a lot of commentary saying this opinion will hurt people or cause problems, and it’s just not true,” Scruggs suggested, adding that numerous states across the country have already adopted the arguments they presented all along in this case.

“All the Supreme Court is saying is you have to respect someone’s right to say or not to say something,” Scruggs explained. “It doesn’t affect the vast majority of how these laws apply in the vast majority of situations. What it puts a stop to is government officials picking and choosing and saying you have to express certain beliefs and affirm our ideology. That’s what this ruling prevents.”

Asked how Smith was feeling since the ruling, Scruggs said, “She feels overjoyed.”

“She’s so proud to be able to stand up not just for her rights but for the rights of all Americans because that’s what this case is about,” he said.

“Free speech is essential,” Scruggs explicated. “It’s an essential right to a free society, especially today when we live in a pluralistic country, and the Supreme Court came out strong and said the answer to that is tolerance, not coercion, and that’s exactly right. We are so thankful the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the First Amendment.”

Zachary Steiber and Mark Tapscott contributed to this report.