303 Creative v. Elenis

 The case the supreme court will be seeing involves Lori Smith, a designer at 303 creative, and the problems that she has had with a Colorado law. First of all, the company she is involved with specializes in marketing, web and graphic design. So they can create different web pages for clients or work on marketing for them as well. The article, US Supreme Court to hear of artist threatened under ‘Orwellian’ Colorado law, states, “The U.S. The Supreme Court agreed Tuesday to take the case of a Denver-area website designer subject to a Colorado state law that censors and coerces the speech of creative professionals whose religious beliefs do not conform to state orthodoxy.” She believes that as a result of the Colorado anti-discriminatory laws she is being censored and or compelled to do things that go against her religion. This issue came about because Lori did not want to design a website for a same sex couple. The 10th Circuit Court of Appeals ordered her to design wedding websites for same sex couples with a 2-1 ruling. According to the article the judge even went as far as to, “Prohibit Smith from even explaining on her social media page which websites she can create based on her religious beliefs.” With all of these factors Smith hopes that the Supreme Court will take her side in seeing that her right to free exercise has been violated. 

Looking at the facts of the case we see that there is Lori’s free exercise in question. They are taking a private business and telling them what customers to see and what they can or can’t say on their website. So now it doesn’t only come down to a free exercise issue, but a matter of free speech. If Lori cannot proclaim on her website her religious beliefs that is a violation of free exercise along with free speech. Two very important clauses in the First Amendment that need to be protected. I understand the compelling state interest of wanting to protect against discrimination, but if that comes at the cost of free exercise of religion and free speech I don’t know if it outways the benefits of the others. I do think there is value in apply anti-discrimination laws, but I also feel like there needs to be a balance between the two where we ensure that anti-dsicrimination doesn’t mean coercion or censorship of other citizens. A good point the article makes states, “The 10th Circuit issued an unprecedented decision in the case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, holding that Smith serves “all people regardless of secual orientation,” yet Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act requires her to engage in speech that violtates her conscinece and in turn creates a “substantial risk” of removing “certain ideas or viewpoints from the public dialogue.” Here we see the crossover between a compelling state interest and the right of free exercise. Lori Smith believes that her religious beliefs should be protected and she feels as if doing this will go against her religious convictions. 

There are two reasons why I possibly side with Lori although I do believe no one should discriminate in this circumstance Lori is a private business owner who should be allowed to choose who she serves, this couple reserves no right to use her business; they could go somewhere else to receive service. Once again I do see the compelling state interest where they want to ensure that everyone is being treated equally and ensure there is no discrimination. Whereas, there is the matter of free exercise on the line it makes this case very difficult. The government is requiring her to create a creative expression that goes against her religious convictions and that is one part that I do not like. The government should have no place in forcing a business to do something, and prohibit what they can say on their website.  Clearly violating her right to free exercise and free speech. I believe that private businesses should reserve the right to decline service to whoever they wish. I also think that there should be laws in place that deal with anti-discrimination, but when it comes to helping customers is can become hard to regulate and seem like there is too much government coercion to make people do things that go against their religion. The article states, “The government doesn’t have the power to silence or compel creative expression under the threat of punishment. It’s shocking that the 10th Circuit would permit Colorado to punish artists whose speech isn’t in line with state-approved ideology.” Here this supports the claim that not only is the free exercise clause come into question but so does free speech. Overall, I believe that Lori should win this case because her free exercise and free speech are being violated.