• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

ReligiousLiberty.TV / Founders' First Freedom®

religious liberty and religious freedom news

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
Home » Supreme Court to Decide: Can states force artists to speak contrary to their faith?

Supreme Court to Decide: Can states force artists to speak contrary to their faith?

February 23, 2022 by ReligiousLiberty.TV

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a case brought by Lorie Smith, a Colorado website designer who wants to post a message on her website indicating that she will not create wedding sites for same-sex couples.

The case is on appeal from the 10th Circuit, which ruled that although creating a wedding website is “pure speech,” her refusal violates the law. The Circuit reasoned that the law is “narrowly tailored” to protect LGBTQ customers and that she must provide the services and not send customers elsewhere because she allows for a “unique” service that the customers cannot obtain elsewhere at the “same quality and nature” that she provides.

The Supreme Court’s review will be limited to the free speech issue and not address the free exercise of religion issue, which could require the Court to address squarely and potentially overturn Employment Division v. Smith (1990). The 1990 Smith case (unrelated to the current case) held that government actions did not violate the free exercise clause of the First Amendment if they are neutral and apply the same to everyone.

This case is similar to a Colorado-based case, Masterpiece Cakeshop, but while decorating a cake had some speech implications, the point was up for debate. In this case, the 10th Circuit found that the business owner was engaged in “pure speech” and that the owner could still be required to speak in ways that violated her sincerely-held religious beliefs.

The state of Colorado had argued that the Supreme Court should not have addressed the case because 303 Creative is not currently in business, and Lorie Smith had not yet faced an enforcement action. The state also argued that the Court should not hear the free exercise issue because Colorado had strengthened free exercise rights in the wake of Masterpiece Cakeshop. They also argued that the message communicated through the website is “attributable to the customer, not the business.”

Supplemental briefing before the Supreme Court focused on the different ways that the Circuits have addressed the issue of free speech in conflict with anti-discrimination statutes. The petitioners cited an Oregon case where a baker, Melissa Klein, was required to make a custom cake celebrating a same-sex wedding. In that case, the Oregon Court of Appeals found that the free speech arguments were “irrelevant” as the requirement survived heightened scrutiny. However, the Eighth and Eleventh Circuits had held that states could not use public-accommodation laws to compel or restrict speech. A key phrase that the petitioners applied was the use of government “to force dissenting artists to speak contrary to their faith by characterizing artistic creations as mere misconduct entitled to zero First Amendment protection.”

Cases that involve a conflict in rights, in this case, the right to be free from discrimination and the right to free speech, can create some thorny issues, but in light of Employment Division v. Smith, the website designer’s free speech claim may be much more robust.

Case:  303 Creative v. Elenis (No. 21-476)

Argument Date: To be determined

Filed Under: Arts, Free Speech, Supreme Court Tagged With: Same-Sex Marriage, wedding case

Primary Sidebar

Geneva, Switzerland - December 03, 2019: World Health Organization (WHO / OMS) Headquarters - DepositPhotos.com

Biden admin could hand over US control of health emergencies to WHO next week

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The ultimate control over America’s health care and its national sovereignty will be put up for a vote next week at a meeting of the World Health Organization’s (WHO) governing legislative body, the World Health Assembly (WHA).  On May 22-28, 2022, the 75th World Health Assembly will convene at the United Nations […]

Statement on the Leak in Dobbs

The leak was intended to disrupt the processing of the decision and we are not going to dignify the leak or the unidentified leaker by analyzing it prematurely. As a constitutional republic we cannot go down that road without doing severe damage to the institution of the Supreme Court where there must be professional courtesy between the justices and their staffs.

Boston City Hall - photo from Supreme Court Opinion

Supreme Court rules 9-0 that Boston violated 1st Amendment in refusing Christian flag at City Hall

This morning the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Shurtleff v. Boston (Dec’d 5/2/2022) that the city of Boston violated the free speech rights of a Christian group when it refused to allow them to participate in a city flag raising program.

Active Liberty - a survey of Justice Stephen Breyer's religion clause jurisprudence - Supreme Court

Active Liberty: A Survey of Justice Stephen Breyer’s Religion Clause Decisions

A comprehensive review of retiring Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer’s decisions in Free Exercise and Establishment Clause cases.

Canadian gov’t calculates that expansion of assisted suicide will save taxpayers millions of dollars

In Canada, it is easier for the disabled who do not suffer terminal illness to get approval for assisted suicide than approval for affordable housing. The government has calculated the cost of providing healthcare versus providing assisted suicide.

Random Quote

These establishments metamorphose the church into a creature, and religion into a principle of state, which has a natural tendency to make men conclude that Bible religion is nothing but a trick of state.

— John Leland

Get the ReligiousLiberty.TV Newsletter!

Comes out a couple of times a month. Unsubscribe anytime automatically, no questions asked.
* = required field
unsubscribe from list

powered by MailChimp!

Copyright © 2022 Founders' First Freedom is a registered trademark. All rights reserved.

  • Home
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Articles
  • Podcast
1
0
1
1