In a recent decision, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on an issue that represented the intersection of public accommodation anti-discrimination laws with Free Speech in the First Amendment. The Court held that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) violated the First Amendment by compelling a website designer to create expressive designs that go against her beliefs. This decision has implications for businesses, as it reaffirms the protection of freedom of speech and expression in commercial transactions.
Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative LLC, wanted to expand her graphic design business to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. However, she was concerned that Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act would force her to create websites celebrating marriages that contradicted her religious belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman. To clarify her rights, Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the state from compelling her to create websites that violated her First Amendment rights.
The Supreme Court’s decision highlighted the importance of freedom of speech and expression, emphasizing that the government cannot interfere with an individual’s right to speak their mind. The Court recognized that the wedding websites Smith sought to create were a form of pure speech protected by the First Amendment.
The ruling may have implications for businesses, especially those involved in creative endeavors. It establishes that individuals and businesses engaged in expressive speech, such as website design, cannot be compelled to create content that contradicts their beliefs or messages they do not endorse. It remains an open question what other forms of commercial speech qualify as expressive activity.
Bottom Line
While the Court acknowledged the importance of public accommodations laws in combating discrimination, it emphasized that such laws should not infringe upon the right to free speech. The ruling recognizes that public accommodations laws play a vital role in ensuring equal access to goods and services, but they cannot be used to compel individuals to express messages with which they disagree. Justice Neil Gorsuch ended his opinion with a powerful reminder that encouraging and teaching tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer to limiting behavior that is unattractive, misguided, or even hurtful.
Special thanks to our summer law clerk, Matthew Friedmann, for his work in drafting this blog post.