Background
Lorie Smith, a Colorado website designer, sought to expand her business to include wedding websites but wanted to serve only heterosexual couples due to her religious beliefs about marriage. She challenged Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) before actually creating wedding websites or being penalized, arguing the law would compel her to create expressive content that violated her religious convictions. Colorado defended the law as a neutral public accommodation requirement that ensures equal access to commercial services regardless of sexual orientation.
Legal Question
Whether Colorado's Anti-Discrimination Act violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause by requiring a website designer to create custom expressive content that conveys messages conflicting with her religious beliefs about marriage.
Holding
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from compelling Smith to create wedding websites with messages that contradict her religious beliefs. The Court distinguished this case from general public accommodation laws, emphasizing that Smith's work constitutes "pure speech" because custom website design involves creating expressive, personalized messages. The majority stressed this was a free speech decision, not a religious liberty ruling, and noted that Smith would serve LGBTQ+ customers for other services—she simply would not create content promoting same-sex marriages.
Significance
This decision significantly strengthens First Amendment protections for creative professionals and expressive businesses, establishing that the government cannot compel artists to create speech that violates their conscience. The ruling creates important distinctions between expressive services (protected speech) and routine commercial services (subject to anti-discrimination laws). While supporters argue it protects artistic freedom and religious conscience, critics worry it could enable broader discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals by businesses claiming expressive or creative elements in their services.
Key Statutes & Provisions
- First Amendment Free Speech Clause
- Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA)
- Constitutional principles regarding compelled speech
- Public accommodation law framework
- Distinction between expressive conduct and commercial activity
Official Documents
303 Creative LLC v. Elenis (21-476) is a Free Speech & Religion case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court in 2023. The court held that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from forcing a website designer to create expressive designs that convey messages with which the designer disagrees, protecting free speech rights based on religious or moral objections.
## Background
Lorie Smith, a Colorado website designer, sought to expand her business to include wedding websites but wanted to serve only heterosexual couples due to her religious beliefs about marriage. She challenged Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA) before actually creating wedding websites or being penalized, arguing the law would compel her to create expressive content that violated her religious convictions. Colorado defended the law as a neutral public accommodation requirement that ensures equal access to commercial services regardless of sexual orientation.
## Legal Question
Whether Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act violates the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause by requiring a website designer to create custom expressive content that conveys messages conflicting with her religious beliefs about marriage.
## Holding
The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the First Amendment prohibits Colorado from compelling Smith to create wedding websites with messages that contradict her religious beliefs. The Court distinguished this case from general public accommodation laws, emphasizing that Smith’s work constitutes “pure speech” because custom website design involves creating expressive, personalized messages. The majority stressed this was a free speech decision, not a religious liberty ruling, and noted that Smith would serve LGBTQ+ customers for other services—she simply would not create content promoting same-sex marriages.
## Significance
This decision significantly strengthens First Amendment protections for creative professionals and expressive businesses, establishing that the government cannot compel artists to create speech that violates their conscience. The ruling creates important distinctions between expressive services (protected speech) and routine commercial services (subject to anti-discrimination laws). While supporters argue it protects artistic freedom and religious conscience, critics worry it could enable broader discrimination against LGBTQ+ individuals by businesses claiming expressive or creative elements in their services.
## Key Statutes & Provisions
– First Amendment Free Speech Clause
– Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA)
– Constitutional principles regarding compelled speech
– Public accommodation law framework
– Distinction between expressive conduct and commercial activity