The U.S. Supreme Court finished its work for the summer with a significant ruling in favor of free speech. In a 6-3 ruling the high court declared that the State of Colorado cannot compel a wedding website designer to celebrate same-sex marriage through her custom artwork.

“The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands,” wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch for the court in 303 Creative v. Elenis.

“Colorado seeks to deny that promise,” he declared.

At issue was the state’s application of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act that prohibits public-facing businesses from denying customers “full and equal enjoyment” of goods and services based on traits including sexual orientation. Lorie Smith, a devout Christian and graphic designer, works with clients regardless of such classifications, but she did not want to be forced to promote an understanding of marriage in conflict with her religious convictions.

The court recognized this as a clear case not only of an individual wishing to exercise free speech, but also one of a government wanting to compel messages it prefers. Gorsuch asserted that eliminating dissenting views on marriage was Colorado’s actual aim in this situation.

“If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs,” he wrote. “…Under our precedents, that ‘is enough,’ more than enough, to represent an impermissible abridgment of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor disagreed and issued a dissenting opinion lamenting the 303 Creative decision as “a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people.”  She said the focus in this case should not be on speech, but on the Colorado law’s general applicability against invidious discrimination that leaves the speech concern to be “incidental.” 

But in a thorough and blistering critique of that dissent, Gorsuch countered that Sotomayor and her two colleagues seemed to be missing the actual facts of the case. Without belittling the importance of public accommodation laws, he explained how the record shows this is clearly one about expression. The key factor for Lorie Smith is not who is requesting a custom message from 303 Creative, it is what the message actually is. The dissenting justices, Gorsuch said, are forgetting the fundamental importance of protecting speech for all regardless of what one thinks of the message.

“By approving a government’s effort to ‘eliminate’ disfavored ‘ideas,’ today’s dissent is emblematic of an unfortunate tendency by some to defend First Amendment values only when they find the speaker’s message sympathetic,” he wrote.

Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented 303 Creative, lauded the ruling as a victory for the liberty of all Americans regardless of whether one agrees with Lorie Smith or not.

“Disagreement isn’t discrimination, and the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it,” said ADF president Kristen Waggoner.

ADF also noted the importance of this ruling in light of other instances of coercion that have left artists exposed to significant fines or effectively pushed out of business. But more battles may be coming. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser for one seemed to redouble in resolve after the ruling’s rebuke.

“I stand firmly with the LGBTQ community. We have come too far in the struggle for freedom and equality to give ground now,” he said. “And we will continue to fight other attempts to rollback our anti-discrimination laws.”

ECFA welcomes this ruling upholding free speech. We will continue to monitor similar challenges to First Amendment freedoms.