Republicans in Congress Urge Supreme Court to Allow Website Designer to Refuse Same-Sex Wedding Clients

metroweekly.com:

brief, which casts Smith’s refusal to serve same-sex couples as a matter of religious freedom and artistic expression protected by the First Amendment to the U.S.

Constitution.Smith, the owner of the firm 303 Creative LLC, claims that she should be allowed to refuse to create websites for same-sex couples on the basis of her personal religious beliefs opposing homosexuality, and her refusal to communicate a message that implicitly supports same-sex marriage.Enlisting the help of the anti-LGBTQ legal group Alliance Defending Freedom, Smith sued the state of Colorado in 2016, demanding an exemption from the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, which prohibits businesses that open themselves up as places of public accommodation from discriminating against people based on sexual orientation.Smith claims she will do some work for LGBTQ clients, but creating wedding websites for those individuals would not only violate her religious beliefs but would violate her freedom of artistic expression, as each website she creates is a specially-tailored, one-of-a-kind product reflecting her own creativity.A federal district judge ruled against Smith in September 2019, finding that her proposal to post a statement outlining her objection to promoting same-sex weddings “proposes an unlawful act” because it would deny services to same-sex couples on the basis of their sexual orientation.

She appealed to the 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which upheld the lower court’s decision. Smith’s lawyers then appealed that decision to the Supreme Court, which agreed to take up the question of whether applying a public accommodation law to compel an artist to speak or stay silent violates the artist’s free speech rights.