Lawrence Hurley

WASHINGTON, (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court heard Tuesday the free speech argument of an evangelical Christian web developer that she could not be required to create websites for gay marriages under a Colorado antidiscrimination statute.

Lorie Smith, a Denver business owner and attorney agreed that the justices would hear her appeal against a ruling by a lower court rejecting her request for an exemption to a Colorado law banning discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation or other factors. Following the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision, Lorie Smith (a Christian Denver-area baker) was allowed to create a wedding cakes for gay couples.

Smith’s case provides the justices with an opportunity to resolve a question raised in previous disputes, including in the case of Baker. This was based upon the belief that fulfillment of creative acts such as creating a website or baking a cupcake is a form free speech under the U.S. Constitution.

The U.S. Supreme Court consistently held that all business selling products and services must adhere to anti-discrimination laws like the Colorado law. “Companies cannot reject LGBT clients just because they are gay,” stated Phil Weiser, a Colorado Democrat.

Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Law prohibits anyone refusing to accept “goods and services, facilities or privileges,” regardless of sexual orientation, race, gender, religion, gender, age, gender, gender, or gender identity. Colorado is one 21 U.S. States with laws that explicitly ban discrimination based upon sexual orientation or gender identity.

Kristen Waggoner is the general counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom (a conservative Christian legal organization) and Smith.

Waggoner stated that Colorado had armed its law in order to silence any speech it does not like or to forbid speech, as well as to punish those who dare to disagree.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority of 6-3 has supported religious rights and free speech in the last few years, even though it supports LGBT rights elsewhere.

A separate question regarding Smith’s religious rights was not addressed by the justices. This is also covered under the First Amendment. Smith requested that the court overturn a key 1990 ruling which limited people’s ability to mention their religion in order to be exempted from the laws that applied to all.

VIEWS OF GAY MARRIAGE

Smith owns 303 Creative, a web-design business that she believes is in line with her Christian faith. Many conservative Christians agree with her belief that only opposite-sex marriages should be allowed.

Smith was worried that she would face disciplinary action under Colorado’s anti-discrimination statute after adding web sites for weddings to her services.

Smith’s lawyers claim that any state action against Smith for refusing design websites for gay marriages is a violation of her religious freedom and free speech rights.

Jennifer Pizer is senior counsel to LGBT rights group Lambda Legal. She said that the Supreme Court must “reaffirm, and apply, longstanding constitutional precedents that our freedoms in religion and speech aren’t a license for discrimination when operating a company.”

Colorado officials claimed that they did not investigate Smith’s firm and didn’t find any evidence she ever requested a site for the same-sex marriage. The lower courts supported Colorado, with the Denver-based 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, July 20,21.

They will hear oral arguments from the justices and then decide in the Supreme Court’s next term which starts in October and finishes in June 2023.

In 2015, the Supreme Court approved gay marriage in all 50 states. It also expanded federal protections for LGBT workers in 2020. It has been difficult for the Supreme Court to decide cases where conservative religious opposition has clashed against LGBT persons seeking their rights.

Smith’s appeal stems from an identical dispute to that which prompted the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision on narrow legal grounds supporting Jack Phillips, a Colorado bakery owner. According to the court, Phillips was discriminated against by the Colorado civil rights commission.

Other states have seen similar lawsuits against other owners of small businesses, including wedding photographers and calligraphers.