The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Lorie Smith reignites debates surrounding religious freedoms and free speech.
At a Glance
- Supreme Court ruled 6-3 favoring Lorie Smith’s free speech rights against Colorado’s anti-bias law.
- Colorado agreed to pay over $1.5 million in legal fees to Smith.
- The Alliance Defending Freedom supported Smith’s legal battle, deeming it a landmark win.
- Justice Neil Gorsuch emphasized constitutional compliance for public accommodations laws.
- Justice Sonia Sotomayor issued a dissent, accusing the ruling of permitting service refusal to protected classes.
The Legal Battle and Implications
Colorado agreed to pay over $1.5 million in legal fees to Lorie Smith, a Christian web designer who successfully defended her First Amendment rights. This decision comes after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in her favor, allowing businesses to refuse services for same-sex weddings based on free speech rights. The case highlights the ongoing legal struggle between individual religious beliefs and state anti-discrimination laws. Smith’s case echoes the Masterpiece Cakeshop decision, once again placing Colorado at the center of such disputes.
The Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF) supported Smith throughout her legal endeavors, hailing the ruling as a pivotal victory for free speech. As senior counsel for the ADF Bryan Neihart noted, this victory “helps to protect all Americans’ freedom of speech from government censorship and coercion.” Public accommodation laws, as stated by Justice Neil Gorsuch in his majority opinion, must adhere to constitutional requirements, safeguarding expressive freedoms.
The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of web designer Lorie Smith in 2023, declaring that the First Amendment allows religious owners of creative businesses to refuse to serve same-sex couples. Now the state will pay her attorney fees. https://t.co/r7gBzSIeis
— Denver Westword (@denverwestword) November 21, 2024
Dissent and Controversy
This ruling did not pass without contention. Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, arguing that the majority “grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” Nonetheless, advocates see this decision as upholding the Constitution’s foundational liberties, challenging Colorado’s past stance on such issues. Smith’s case countered the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which she argued could force her to contravene her conviction in traditional marriage.
“The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs speaking messages with which the designer disagrees…. The First Amendment’s protections belong to all, not just to speakers whose motives the government finds worthy. In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance,” wrote Gorsuch.
The ruling also carries economic implications for Colorado taxpayers, who will bear the cost of Smith’s legal expenses. The nearly $2 million initially requested in legal fees was adjusted, covering 2,174.4 hours of work.
Broader Implications
This decision signifies a crucial juncture in the discourse on religious liberties and expression, particularly for those with conventional perspectives on marriage. As debates persist, this ruling underscores the necessity of solidifying constitutional freedoms in the face of evolving societal standards.
“As the Supreme Court said, I’m free to create art consistent with my beliefs without fear of Colorado punishing me anymore. This is a win not just for me but for all Americans—for those who share my beliefs and for those who hold different views. I love people and work with everyone, including those who identify as LGBT. For me, it’s always about what message is requested, never the person making the request. I hope that everyone will celebrate the court’s decision upholding this right for each of us to speak freely,” stated Lorie Smith.
