Breaking: Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Designer Who Refuses to Make Same-Sex Wedding Websites

- June 30, 2023

The Supreme Court ruled Friday that an evangelical Christian web designer cannot be compelled to create a wedding website for a gay couple.

In a 6-3 ruling in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the Court held that the web designer’s work constitutes speech and, as such, she cannot be compelled to create a product that violates her deeply held beliefs.

Lorie Smith, a graphic designer who wanted to expand into wedding websites, sought a ruling that Colorado could not enforce its anti-discrimination law against her. Smith opposes same-sex marriage on religious grounds and wanted to post a message on her page indicating that she would not design websites for same-sex couples.

The website designer lost in both district and circuit court before petitioning the Supreme Court. While the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals found that Smith’s craft was “pure speech” and that Colorado was compelling speech through its anti-discrimination law, the judges in the majority argued that granting Smith an exemption "would necessarily relegate LGBT consumers to an inferior market because Appellants' unique services are, by definition, unavailable elsewhere.”

While Smith asked the justices to consider both a free speech claim and a free exercise claim, only the former was reviewed by the high court. The Biden administration sided with Colorado in an amicus brief, arguing Smith’s case does not belong in the same category as other cases involving compelled speech.

The facts of the case bear a close resemblance to Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which the Supreme Court ruled in favor of a baker, Jack Phillips, who had objected to making custom cakes for same-sex couples.

In a 7-2 opinion penned by then-justice Anthony Kennedy, the Court held that by punishing Phillips, Colorado had violated his free exercise of religion. Kennedy explained that the commission had engaged in overt hostility towards Phillips’s religious beliefs in the process. The narrow ruling left major free-speech questions unanswered.