143 S. Ct. 2298 (2023)
Lorie Smith owns and operates 303 Creative LLC, a graphic and website design business in Colorado.1
In 2019, she decided to expand her offerings to include custom wedding websites featuring original text, graphics, and videos that celebrate each couple's unique love story.2 As a Christian, Smith holds a sincere religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman.3
She therefore does not wish to create websites for same-sex weddings.4 To clarify her rights before launching the new service, Smith filed a pre-enforcement lawsuit in federal district court against Colorado officials.5
She sought an injunction to prevent the State from compelling her to design websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse.6 The parties stipulated to numerous facts, including Smith's willingness to serve clients of any sexual orientation provided the content did not contradict her beliefs.7
They also established that the websites would be expressive in nature.8 Viewers will know that the websites are her original artwork.9 Finally, the stipulations noted that many other companies in Colorado and nationwide offer similar services.10
The Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act broadly defines public accommodations to encompass nearly every business selling goods or services to the public.11 The Act prohibits denying the full and equal enjoyment of those goods and services on the basis of sexual orientation or other protected characteristics.12
Smith alleged that entering the wedding website market would expose her to enforcement actions under the Act for refusing same-sex wedding websites.13 The district court granted summary judgment to the State in 2019.14
The Tenth Circuit affirmed in 2021.15 The Supreme Court granted certiorari in 2022.16
Whether the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs with which she disagrees?17
Yes. The parties stipulated that Smith's planned wedding websites qualify as pure speech.20 They are original, customized creations containing words, images, and other modes of expression that celebrate and promote the couple's unique love story.21 Colorado seeks to compel Smith to create websites for same-sex marriages if she offers the service at all.22
This would force her to express messages she does not endorse on a matter of public concern.23 When a law forces a speaker to engage in pure speech on a matter of public concern, the First Amendment requires strict scrutiny.24 The state's interests in ensuring access to the same expressive services for same-sex couples and eliminating the secondary effects of discrimination do not survive that scrutiny.25 No authority permits the government to compel speech merely to make a particular message available from another speaker.26
The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs with which she disagrees.27
Related opinions on this issue
Joined by Justices Kagan And Jackson
Justice Sotomayor dissented.28 She contended that CADA regulates conduct rather than speech.29 The majority's decision for the first time grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.30
She maintained that the websites are goods and services offered to the public.31 The law is a content-neutral regulation of conduct that only incidentally burdens speech.32 The state possesses compelling interests in ensuring equal access to goods and services and eliminating the dignitary harms of discrimination.33
Those interests are narrowly tailored.34 Sotomayor concluded that the ruling licenses discrimination against LGBTQ persons.35 It represents a grave error that misreads the record, the law, and the Constitution.36