Graphic Design Flaws?

A Colorado graphic designer, named Lorie Smith, is appealing a September 1^st ruling against her business, 303 creative, to the U.S. Court of Appeals when she challenged a state law forcing her to promote same-sex ceremonies. A federal judge refused to temporarily halt part of the law that stopped her from publicly expressing her Christian belief in marriage between a man and a woman. This case gets very interesting because the judge has said they are putting the case on hold until Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission is decided at the Supreme Court level. The basis for the federal judge’s decision was that her and the studio cannot sue part of the law because a request sent to her by a couple who identifies by the names of “Stewart” and “Mike” is not formal enough to prove that a same-sex couple actually asked the studio to help them celebrate.

Alliance Defending Freedom says that the Colorado Civil Rights Commission “construed the law to force artists like Smith to create objectionable art even though Smith happily serves everyone and decides what art to create based on the art’s message- not the personal characteristics of the prospective client”. However, they may sue on part of the law that prohibits artists from expressing any religious views on marriage that could make someone feel “unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable” because of sexual orientation. The only thing as I mentioned before is that they are holding the ruling until a finalization in the Jack Philips cake case.

The key issue in this case, that has been prevalent in many other cases, is the allowance of religious individuals and their businesses to refuse to engage in actions that are contrary to their religious views. I think the federal judge ruled correctly about not allowing her to sue on one portion of the law because I don’t think the argument they presented with giving two names was suffice enough to allow them leverage to sue. Also, I agree they should be able to sue the part of the law that prohibits them from expressing their religious views. I think the limits that coexist within this case and that law are within good conscious, but I don’t think they went about it in the correct way. It undermines the First Amendment in many ways, not just the religious aspects. The law hinders free speech and free press, and it particularly affects religious individuals and businesses more than others, in hopes to curb same-sex individuals from being turned away.

ADF Senior Counsel Jonathan Scruggs said, “The government must allow artists like Lorie the freedom to make their own decisions about which messages they will promote. Lorie is happy to design custom art for all people; she simply objects to being forced to pour her heart, imagination, and talents into messages that violate her conscience. Because the court’s ruling allows the government to violate Lorie’s freedom to make these personal decisions, she is appealing.” The argument he presents is the same as the rights given to us in the Constitution. The First Amendment gives us the right to Religion, Speech, and Press. This law prohibits them from making things that correlate with their religion, making them do things that are oppositional to it, and in some fashion violates all three of those rights.

Just as I said on the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case, I don’t believe individuals who are artists should be forced to make their pieces if it violates their religious beliefs. It violates their Free Exercise rights, as well as the Free Speech aspect that makes them not able to exercise their rights. Plus, I believe there is a difference between someone denying because of bigoted objectives and actual religious findings.  Along with that, it doesn’t necessarily stop the customer from being served, they will be served in other cases, just not in a way that violates their religious standing. The argument for them to be forced to make something that violates their religious rights isn’t compelling enough to allow the law to not be changed or applied differently.