When Vital Precedents Clash
303 CREATIVE LLC V. ELENIS
The First Amendment is viewed by many as the most important part of the Constitution.
What happens when the First Amendment comes into conflict with other important constitutional values?
This case considers this question.
Lorie Smith is a website designer in Colorado who sought to get into the market of creating websites for couples preparing for their weddings.�
www.ADFLegal.org
She believes same-sex marriage is inconsistent with her religious beliefs. She did not want to create websites for same-sex couples.
www.washingtonpost.com
Colorado has a public accommodation law that prohibits businesses from discriminating against LGBTQ customers. ��The law defines discrimination as refusing to provide goods or services, but also engaging in communication that says an individual’s patronage is unwelcome because of a protected characteristic.��
����Lorie Smith challenged the constitutionality of this law, arguing that requiring her to create websites for same-sex weddings would force her to do work that violated her freedom of speech. She also argued that she should be able to state her position on same-sex marriage.�
Alliance Defending Freedom
Both the federal district court and the court of appeals ruled in favor of the state.
Lorie appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court and the court agreed to hear the case. The issue in this case is whether the Colorado law forces Lorie Smith to present a message with which she disagrees, in violation of her First Amendment rights.
Smith argued that application of this law would force her to engage in speech that is inconsistent with her religious beliefs and violates her conscience. �
www.washingtonpost.com
She contended that the law should not be used to compel individuals to put forth a message in which they do not believe. �Doing so, in her view, violates Freedom of Speech.�
Smith argued that creating the website would convey her approval of same-sex marriage.
Should Smith and other businesses be allowed to refuse service to individuals or groups conveying a message contradictory to their religion?
Smith cited Hurley v. Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995) as precedent to support her argument. ���
www.stoh.com
In Hurley, organizers of a St. Patrick’s Day parade were opposed to allowing the Irish American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston to participate in their parade.�The parade organizers argued that the message of the group was too different from their own and that the group should be excluded.
The Supreme Court decided in favor of the parade organizers, ruling that they could exclude groups from participation, if those groups presented a message contrary to the one presented by the parade organizers.
Writing for a unanimous Court in Hurley, Justice David Souter wrote, "One important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide what not to say."�
www.mprnews.org
Smith argues that just as the parade organizers in Hurley could not be forced to include a message in their parade that was inconsistent with their beliefs, Smith should not be forced to create a website that is inconsistent with her religious beliefs.���
In Hurley, the Court suggested that allowing the group to participate in the parade conveyed a message of approval for the group from the organizers.��In this case, does creating a website for a gay couple convey a message of approval of same-sex marriage?
Smith emphasized that her position is not grounded in animus toward gay people.
For example, she would be willing to create a website for a gay person who runs an animal shelter. It was only the wedding website that she did not want to create.
Smith emphasized that her position is not grounded in animus toward gay people.
Smith pointed out that she would refuse to create a website for an opposite-sex couple, if their actions were contrary to her religious beliefs. For example, if they were remarrying after divorcing their original spouses.
�Smith argued that her position is based on honoring the principles of her religion, not in mistreating homosexuals.�
Colorado responded by arguing that when a business sets itself up to sell products and services to the public, it is agreeing to sell them to anyone who wants to buy those products and services. �
www.wric.com
The Colorado Solicitor General pointed out that a store could decide to sell only Jewish-themed items, but it cannot refuse to sell its items to Christians or Muslims. Do you find this argument, and the analogy to Smith, convincing? �
www.traditionsjewishgifts.com
The state does not force anyone to start a business. But once a person starts that business, the state can require that business to be operated in a fair, non-discriminatory manner.�
www.bizjournals.com
Do you agree with this idea?��Should this rule apply to �Lorie Smith?
The Colorado law is designed to protect marginalized groups, people who have very little power to resist unfair practices.
Colorado argued that the state has an obligation to protect these groups. It should not falter in this obligation simply because the person who seeks to violate the law is sympathetic and can state compelling reasons for her violation of the law.
Smith is offering no meaningful standard to determine which parties will be allowed to disregard the law. If Lorie Smith is allowed to get around this law, there will be many others who follow her example. �
If they are successful, then the enforcement mechanism for this law will be riddled with exceptions and inconsistencies. Soon, the means of achieving antidiscrimination will be rendered useless.
As pointed out by the Colorado Solicitor General, all the people who seek to get around this law will not be motivated by admirable religious beliefs.� �Some will be motivated by racist, sexist, and bigoted objectives. ��A ruling for Smith today will open the door for this unacceptable situation tomorrow.�
�No matter how the Supreme Court chooses to rule, a longstanding precedent will be jeopardized.
As pointed out by Supreme Court reporter Amy Howe:�
�Which of these options is more unacceptable to you?
�If you were on the Supreme Court, would you rule in favor of Lorie Smith or the State of Colorado? Why?