Facts of the Case

Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative LLC, a web design company in Colorado, wanted to expand her business to include custom wedding websites. However, she intended to decline requests to create websites for same-sex weddings due to her religious beliefs that marriage should be between one man and one woman. Smith also wished to post a statement on her business website explaining her stance. However, she was concerned that doing so would violate Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA), which prohibits public accommodations from denying services based on sexual orientation and from publishing statements indicating such a refusal.

Smith preemptively sued Colorado, arguing that CADA violated her First Amendment rights to free speech and free exercise of religion by compelling her to create speech that conflicted with her beliefs and by preventing her from expressing her religious views on her website.

Constitutional Question

Does Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits a business from refusing service based on sexual orientation and from publishing statements to that effect, violate the First Amendment’s free speech and free exercise of religion protections when applied to a business that creates custom expressive content?

Arguments

For 303 Creative LLC (Lorie Smith):

• The creation of custom websites is a form of expressive speech, and compelling Smith to create websites for same-sex weddings forces her to convey a message that contradicts her religious beliefs.
• CADA violates Smith’s First Amendment rights by compelling her to create speech she disagrees with and by restricting her ability to express her religious views on her business website.
• The government should not force individuals or businesses to create expressive content that conflicts with their deeply held beliefs.

For Elenis (Director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division):

• CADA is a neutral, generally applicable law that seeks to ensure that businesses open to the public serve all customers equally, regardless of sexual orientation.
• The law regulates commercial conduct, not speech, and does not compel specific speech but rather prohibits discrimination in public accommodations.
• Allowing businesses to refuse service based on religious beliefs could lead to widespread discrimination against various protected classes and undermine public accommodations laws.

The Decision

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision, ruled in favor of 303 Creative LLC. Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, held that Colorado’s application of CADA in this case violated the First Amendment. The Court concluded that compelling Smith to create expressive content that conflicted with her religious beliefs amounted to compelled speech, which is unconstitutional. The decision emphasized that while public accommodations laws serve important purposes, they cannot force individuals to express messages that violate their sincerely held beliefs.

The ruling distinguished between regulating commercial conduct and compelling speech, with the Court asserting that the creation of custom websites is a form of protected speech. The decision did not strike down CADA in its entirety but rather limited its application in cases where it would compel speech in violation of the First Amendment.

Significance

303 Creative LLC v. Elenis is a landmark case that further defined the balance between anti-discrimination laws and First Amendment rights, particularly in the context of expressive businesses. The ruling expanded the scope of free speech protections, particularly for businesses that create custom expressive content, by affirming that the government cannot compel individuals or businesses to convey messages that conflict with their beliefs. The decision has significant implications for the ongoing national debate over religious freedom, LGBTQ+ rights, and the application of public accommodations laws. The case is likely to influence future legal challenges and policies regarding the intersection of free speech, religious liberty, and anti-discrimination protections.