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.
7 comments:
https://adfmedia.org/case/303-creative-v-elenis
https://www1.cbn.com/cbnnews/us/2022/february/supreme-court-to-hear-case-against-colorados-orwellian-order-that-forces-christian-artist-to-violate-her-beliefs
Here are the websites I used. I forgot to attach them to the bottom.
I think Libby makes some solid points, and I agree with the position she takes on the case. It is very similar to some of the past cases we went over like the baker case. We see many of them same aspects come in to play such as compelling state interest, free exercise, and perhaps the most important thing which is that this is a private business. When there exists an issue regarding private businesses, the Supreme Court has made its stance fairly clear. Private businesses can do as they please, and the client can go somewhere else for service. The client has no right to use this creator, and cannot force them to work against their beliefs. I also agree that there is no compelling state interest here to infringe on the rights of the creator. Fairness can be achieved in a less restrictive manner.
Here we see a conflict between a discriminatory practice and free exercise rights. This has been presented multiple times, but in this case, I believe that Lori Smith has the right to deny service to a same-sex couple. There is a substantial burden placed on her religion. This reminds me of the Bob Jones case in which a university engaging in discriminatory behavior was not given a tax exempt status. The government has a compelling state interest to prevent discrimination as they did in that case. However, in this case, there is a least restrictive means in that the couple can go to another web designer, and this is a private business. The government should not be able to limit any kind of speech they disagree with, especially if that speech is part of religiously held belief. It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules because it will set a precedent for balancing LGBTQ+ rights with free exercise rights. The fact that this is a private business makes me believe they would rule in favor of Lori Smith, unless the government decides to become stricter in anti-discrimination laws.
I agree with Libby in this case and her siding with Lori. Although I do think it is very important to not be discriminatory, I think there is a compelling interest for Libby in this situation. It's a private business at hand, and private businesses have the right to deny clients. There is also no right for the client to use Lori's company. There is no substantial burden placed on the client; they could use a different creator if this private business is not open to them.
I agree with your argument, and I think you did a great job explaining this case. I mostly agree with your argument that Lori is a private business owner, and there is a very compelling interest for the government to actively avoid intervening with private businesses. Further, as we have previously discussed in class, there is no constitutional right to not get offended. In this context, there is no right for the client to use Lori's company for their website or to not get offended by Lori's views. Although the government does have a compelling state interest in preventing discrimination, the least restrictive means is not forcing a private business owner to go against her personal views and create a website for an event that she does not support. Additionally, there is a clear distinction between a website that is for a same-sex wedding and a website that is for a member of the LGBTQ+ community and unrelated to their sexual orientation. I would be interested to know if Lori would create a website for a same-sex couple to use as a blog or for another purpose that does not relate to her views that specifically go against same-sex weddings. There would be a substantial burden on Lori to forcibly go directly against her beliefs for her own private business than there is a burden on the same-sex couple to use another web and graphic design company.
This case seems very similar to other conversations we have had in class like the wedding cake designer. I always flip back and forth in situations like these because discrimination is such a dicey topic. I find that in cases like this I have to decided to side with Lori as she is a private business owner who is allowed to giver her services to whom ever she likes. It is not fair that she is allowed to discriminate but she is a private business and is not getting any funding from the state, therefore she is allowed to give her services to who she wants. There is also no reason that this couple MUST use this designer so they can get services elsewhere.
I think this case is very similar to many of the ones that we have gone over before on this blog. The decision in all of these cases comes down to whether it is more important to protect free exercise of religion or protect against discrimination. I think that since this is a private business and there is no constitutional protection for sexual identity, free exercise of religion needs to be protected. It is also a slippery slope if the government is able to tell people what they are able to express.
Post a Comment