In the case 303 Creative LLC v Elenis the petitioner Lorie Smith is a christian who intends to expand her business to create wedding websites for couples. However, she claims her religious beliefs prohibit her from creating wedding websites to same-sex-couples, because that would require her to speak a view of marriage that violates her convictions. Colorado’s Anti-discrimination Act (CADA) prohibits her from publishing a statement that she will not create same-sex wedding websites and limiting her services to marriages between a man and a woman. Mrs Smith is suing, arguing that the State is compelling her speech by applying the CADA public accommodation law. There are extensive arguments and argumentation presented in the brief of the petitioner, but I will focus on a few of them I find to be interesting.
The brief of the petitioner expresses that “everyone agrees that Smith’s websites are speech” (in her opinion pure speech). The basic legal claim of the brief is that the case is a First Amendment free speech case and the petitioner is an artist protected by the constitution. The most significant fact to the petitioner is that (in their opinion) CADA is compelling speech based on content and censors artists, which violates the First Amendment. They argue that CADA makes an artist’s speech itself an accommodation and compels the petitioner to speak against her convictions. The petitioner is referred to as an artist opposed to Colorado’s view of the petitioner as an actor in business.
In the background of the brief, you can see a battle between conservative and liberal ideologies. This is also a wider debate in the USA society, where ideologies collide and the society remains highly polarized on issues. The petitioner is a religious conservative, which plays a huge role in this brief. The petitioner believes that “her creative abilities are a gift that must be used in ways that glorify and honor God”. That is why she cannot promote a concept of marriage that is “not solely the union of one man and one woman”. This case is to the petitioner about her freedom of religion and conscience. The petitioner claims that the State has liberal values and she expresses that her (religious) views differ from the state’s ideology and that is why she is being punished. She thinks that the government “stigmatizes her viewpoint as unwelcome”.
The petitioner creates a very steep contrast between the state and the individual. Reading the brief, you can see a confrontation between government interest and individual rights. It is directly said that there is no government interest. On the other hand Mrs Smith’s religious beliefs and convictions are presented on the opposite side as her important individual rights to decide what messages she conveys. To support the view that Colorado is breaching her rights, the brief of the petitioner attacks the actions of the State of Colorado and its accommodation laws harshly. The petitioner Mrs Smith feels that the state has silenced her voice and is picking ideological winners and losers. CADA is called a “state sponsored censorship” and “coercion”, an “invalid restriction on constitutionally protected speech” and it is described to replace speaker autonomy with the government’s message. I have a page worth of example extracts to insert in this section but I will end with the following quote: this “ highlights the true nature of how Colorado applies CADA: to censor and punish those who express a view on marriage contrary to the State’s own”.
One can see an attempt to distinguish freedom of conscience (religious freedom) and discrimination from each other in this case. This is also due to differentiating between state interest (preventing discrimination) and individual rights (freedom to choose what messages one will send out). The claim is that everyone agrees that the petitioner does not discriminate against clients based on protected qualities like race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender. However, she will not serve any request to convey a message and to create content that contradicts the truths of the Bible, no matter who the client is. Basically, she “does not discriminate against anyone. She simply claims the constitutional right to exercise autonomy over her own messages” and that is something that the free speech of the First Amendment protects in her view. The petitioner believes that including those messages to her work would make it seem that she regards them as “worthy of presentation and quite possibly of support as well” thus altering and forcing her to speak a message she otherwise would not.
In conclusion, the brief of the petitioner builds a strong contrast between the government and individual rights. The brief also uses very definitive language like “compel”, “coercion” and “betray their convictions” to accentuate their point. The main point for the petitioner is that Colorado’s action should be regarded as compelled speech and breach of the First Amendment and that the petitioner is regarded as an artist. This is another good case example of the battle between conservatives and liberals in the United States and between individual rights and government interest. This brief showcases those confrontations in an interesting way.
Team 303 Creative, Case Argumentation Analysis