Before You Claim First Amendment Violation, Please First Express Yourself

With the Supreme Court is a case known as 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis. Simply put, 303 Creative LLC's founder Lorie Smith is claiming that Colorado's public accommodation law, which prohibits businesses open to the public from refusing service based on race, color, religion, gender and sexual preference, violates her First Amendment rights since the state's law is forcing her to express a message that goes against her strong religious belief on same-sex marriage. The case argues that building custom wedding websites is a form of Lori Smith's expression and that applying the state's public accommodation law violates her First Amendment rights by forcing her to create same-sex wedding websites, an artistic expression as a graphic designer. 

Everyone! Take a deep inhale and a deeper exhale because the conservative Justices may be ruling in favor of 303 Creative LLC. If the majority of Justices rule that building custom websites is a protected expression of graphic designers rather than a business that offers goods and services, then states with laws such as Colorado's public accommodation law will face lawsuits from businesses that will want to define themselves as a form of protected expression rather than goods and services. This nation's LGBTQ community will face discrimination and that discrimination will be protected under the First Amendment. 

Photo by That's Her Business on Unsplash

Once the Supreme Court rules in favor of 303 Creative LLC, it will take years if not decades for it to be undone. This is much bigger than the LGBTQ community. I value one's right to practice religion and express it; however, art becomes business not an expression when your artistic skills are sold as a service.

Lorie Smith doesn't select subjects to express her views and perspectives, but she offers skills to customers who want custom websites. I'm pretty certain her customers provide her with most of the content to build the websites, what it should look or feel like, edit, proof and approve the final product. 

If Lorie Smith were to require Leviticus 20:13 on every custom wedding website, be it heterosexual or same-sex, as her expression, then that expression would be protected as an artist. Leviticus 20:13 says, "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads." I doubt that this would be a popular artistic requirement, be it in type treatments or in Lorie Smith's graphic expression, with even heterosexual couples.

Colorado's public accommodation law doesn't prevent Lorie Smith from expressing her religious beliefs. She can offer her protected expression under the First Amendment to the public through her business and let the public decide if they want to pay for her artistic expression as a graphic designer. She cannot claim that her rights are being violated when she hasn't even expressed her religious perspective as an artist.

I acknowledge that Lorie Smith has the right to practice any religion of her choice and express it; however, her refusal to work with same-sex couples, is discrimination. If her conviction against same-sex marriage is indeed that strong, then she should first express that as a graphic designer in all her work involving custom wedding websites, and let the customers decide if they want to purchase her work containing her religious perspective.