July 5, 2023

In a long over due decision on conscious rights for Christians, the U.S. Supreme Court issued it's ruling in Creative LLC v. Aubrey Elenis in which it found that Lorie Smith could not be compelled to design a website for same-sex marriage as it forces her to express a view that conflicts with her conscious. The case involves the state of Colorado which has an "anti-discrimination law" that bars "discrimination" in public accommodations which include sexual orientation and gender identity. The law allows for the state and private individuals to enforce the law. Lorie Smith who has a graphic design business sought to expand her business by creating wedding websites for couples, however under the Colorado law, she would be compelled to create same sex wedding websites even though it conflicts with her faith and would violate her conscious. Accordingly, she filed suit and sought an injunction against the law as it had no provision for conscious rights. Ms. Smith made it clear in her filing that she was willing to work with all people including LGBT customers, however she cannot create content that contradicts with Biblical truth. The district court denied the injunction and the 10th Circuit upheld the ruling. Ms. Smith then appealed to the Supreme Court which issued the 6-3 ruling in her favor. 

This issues in this case were similar with the previous case involving Colorado baker Jack Phillips, however the court issued a much more narrower ruling in the previous case. The court effectively sidestepped the issue of conscious rights for bakers, photographers, website creators and florists who were being forced to express a viewpoint which conflicted with their faith involving same-sex marriage. Mr. Phillips, the owner of Masterpiece Cakeshop, baked goods for all occasions including wedding cakes. Mr. Phillips like Ms. Smith had no issue working with LGBT customers, however he was asked to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex couple and declined as it conflicted with his faith. A complaint was filed with the Colorado Human Rights Commission which ultimately found that he violated Colorado's public accommodation law, the same law at issue in this case. In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. 2018, the court held that “while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.” The court also reiterated its view from Obergefell v. Hodges 576 U.S 2015 that opposition to homosexual marriage based on one's faith is rational as a matter of law. The court ultimately found that the Colorado Human Rights Commission exhibited a religious animus toward Jack Phillips for his religious views and therefore violated his rights under the free exercise clause reversing the commission's decision.

As the court failed to address conscious rights for people of faith in Masterpiece Cakeshop, LGBT extremists continued to target Mr. Phillips. A transgender customer asked Mr. Phillips to create a cake recognizing the customer's gender transformation and again Mr. Phillips declined as the request conflicting with his faith and therefore his conscious. The Colorado Human Rights Commission did another investigation, tried again to target Mr. Phillips for his faith. Mr. Phillips then sought and obtained a federal court injunction against the Colorado Human Rights Commission. When the Commission was blocked from continuing its vendetta against Mr. Phillips, the transgender activist filed a complaint in state court and a state court issued a ruling against Mr. Phillips finding he engaged in discrimination by declining to make a cake even though he would be compelled to express a view contrary to his faith. This is ample proof as to why the conscious rights of Americans including people of faith need to be protected. The current case finally addressed the unrelenting bigotry of the LGBT movement which seeks to destroy those who disagree with same-sex marriage and transgenderism by using lawfare.   

The court based its decision on the First Amendment which says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." In particular, the court found that the application of the Colorado law violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment as it compels Ms. Smith to create content that conflicts with her conscious based on her faith. Colorado tried to argue that the websites designed by Ms. Smith were ordinary commercial products but also acknowledged that Ms. Smith sought to provide a "customized and tailored" website promoting a "couple's wedding and unique love story". The key issue is the unique expression by a creator of a specific website which promotes the intimate marriage of each couple thereby conveying a unique message and the right of conscious not to be compelled to support a message or viewpoint contrary to one's faith. American jurisprudence has an ample history of protecting conscious rights. Justice Gorsuch who wrote for the majority referred to the appeals court dissent, “Taken to its logical end,” Chief Judge Tymkovich warned, his colleagues’ approach would permit the government to “regulate the messages communicated by all artists”—a result he called “unprecedented.” Id., at 1204.

Gorsuch went on the cite several Supreme court precedents related to free speech and not being forced to convey a message contrary to one's deeply held beliefs, Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc., 515 U. S. 557 (1995) the right of a veterans group to limit who participates in a St. Patrick parade and Boy Scouts of America v. Dale in which the court upheld the Boyscouts expressive right to limit their membership based on their values. Gorsuch made it absolutely clear that the court precedent  recognized "no public accommodations law is immune from the demands of the Constitution. In particular, this Court has held, public accommodations statutes can sweep too broadly when deployed to compel speech." Gorsuch disputed the dissent's concern over deciding a pre-enforcement challenge as the 10th Circuit found that Ms. Smith faced a credible threat of enforcement (While not mentioned, the dissent totally ignored the ongoing persecution of Jack Phillips). Gorsuch also referred to the dissent as a "reimangination" referring to their assertion that this court for the first time will grant a business under public accommodation the “right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” He responded by saying the court is doing "no such thing" and accusing the dissent of seeking to have "this court do something truly novel by allowing a government to coerce an individual to speak contrary to her beliefs on a significant issue of personal conviction, all in order to eliminate ideas that differ from its own."

The majority showed the absurdity of the dissent, "In some places, the dissent gets so turned around about the facts that it opens fire on its own position. For instance: While stressing that a Colorado company cannot refuse “the full and equal enjoyment of [its] services” based on a customer’s protected status, post, at 27, the dissent assures us that a company selling creative services “to the public” does have a right “to decide what messages to include or not to include,” post, at 28. But if that is true, what are we even debating?" Gorsuch went on to call the concerns cited by the dissent as "hypotheticals". He then destroyed the dissent's real argument, "Finally, the dissent comes out and says what it really means: Once Ms. Smith offers some speech, Colorado “would require [her] to create and sell speech, notwithstanding [her] sincere objection to doing so”—and the dissent would force her to comply with that demand. Post, at 29–30. Even as it does so, however, the dissent refuses to acknowledge where its reasoning leads. In a world like that, as Chief Judge Tymkovich highlighted, governments could force “an unwilling Muslim movie director to make a film with a Zionist message,” they could compel “an atheist muralist to accept a commission celebrating Evangelical zeal,” and they could require a gay website designer to create websites for a group advocating against same-sex marriage, so long as these speakers would accept commissions from the public with different messages. 6 F. 4th, at 1199 (dissenting opinion). Perhaps the dissent finds these possibilities untroubling because it trusts state governments to coerce only “enlightened” speech. But if that is the calculation, it is a dangerous one indeed."

The court's majority noted the dishonesty of the dissent, "Today, however, the dissent abandons what this Court’s cases have recognized time and time again: A commitment to speech for only some messages and some persons is no commitment at all." The conclusion of the majority is consistent with our long history of conscious rights, freedom of speech, freedom of thought and religious liberty, "But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. 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. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is Reversed." Well said.