The US Supreme Court ruled Friday in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis that a Colorado-based web designer cannot be compelled to create wedding websites for LGBTQ+ couples, despite the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) which protects LGBTQ+ people from discrimination in public accommodations. The Court determined that forcing the designer to comply with CADA would violate her First Amendment right to free speech under the US Constitution.

Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for the majority, emphasized that while anti-discrimination laws are constitutional, it is not constitutional to compel someone to make art, as art is akin to speech. The opinion rests on the precedential case of Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian and Bisexual Group of Boston, Inc, in which an LGBTQ+ group was banned from a St. Patrick’s Day Parade and sued under a Massachusetts public accommodation anti-discrimination law. The court found that parade organizers could not be compelled to allow the LGBTQ+ group in the parade because it would violate the parade organizer’s right to free speech. Gorsuch writes, “In Hurley, the Court commented favorably on Massachusetts’ public accommodations law, but made plain it could not be ‘applied to expressive activity’ to compel speech.”

Gorsuch also cited the case Boy Scouts of America v. Dale, where the Court found in favor of a Boy Scout policy banning LGBTQ+ people from participating in scouting, despite a New Jersey public accommodations anti-discrimination law. Gorsuch writes, “In Dale, the Court observed that New Jersey’s public accommodations law had many lawful applications but held that it could ‘not justify such a severe intrusion on the Boy Scouts’ rights to freedom of expressive association.'”

Gorsuch concluded, saying:

Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider “unattractive,” “misguided, or even hurtful.” 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.

Justices Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson dissented. Justice Sotomayor, writing for the dissent, said:

This case cannot be understood outside of the context in which it arises. In that context, the outcome is even more distressing. The LGBT rights movement has made historic strides, and I am proud of the role this Court recently played in that history. Today, however, we are taking steps backward.

Gorsuch lambasted the dissent, saying, “Today…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 Alliance for Defending Freedom, a conservative legal organization that assisted the petitioner in the case, celebrated the ruling, saying, “The Court reiterated that it’s unconstitutional for the state to eliminate from the public square ideas it dislikes, including the belief that marriage is the union of husband and wife.” Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser, however, condemned the ruling, saying, “Today’s sweeping decision threatens to destabilize our public marketplace and encourage all kinds of businesses—not just those serving weddings—to claim a First Amendment free speech right to refuse service to certain customers.”

303 Creative LLC revolves around Lorie Smith, a web designer in Colorado who intended on expanding her business to include wedding websites. Smith alleged that if she were to expand her business and refuse to create wedding websites for LGBTQ+ couples, she would be penalized and compelled to create them under CADA. Smith also alleged she received a request for a wedding website from a gay couple. The US District Court District of Colorado sided with the state of Colorado and the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the district court ruling. Smith requested a writ of certiorari to the US Supreme Court in September 2021.

Shortly before the release of the court’s opinion, the New Republic, an online news organization, claimed that there was no gay couple that requested a wedding website from Smith. Melissa Gira Grant, a journalist for the site, called the man who allegedly submitted the request and he claimed it was “the very first time I’ve heard of it.” The submission allegedly included the man’s contact information, however, he is already married. The man said, “I’m married, I have a child—I’m not really sure where that came from? But somebody’s using false information in a Supreme Court filing document.”