I’m about to describe what should be a simple First Amendment case. Lorie Smith of Colorado has a business designing websites for special events, including weddings. Lorie is a Christian who holds the traditional belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman, and she is not willing to design websites that promote alternative models of marriage, like same-sex or polygamous marriages.
Lorie objects to betraying her beliefs about marriage through her work, but she doesn’t discriminate against any customers. In other words, she’ll gladly design a website promoting an LGBT person and their business, but she won’t design a website promoting a gay wedding or a polygamous wedding for anyone, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity.
But Colorado has told Lorie that under its so-called “anti-discrimination” law, the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act, or CADA, she can’t design websites for traditional marriages unless she also designs websites promoting same-sex marriage.
You probably don’t need to be a constitutional law expert to notice there’s more than one First Amendment problem here. The First Amendment bars states from “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion. It also bars them from “abridging the freedom of speech.”
But the First Amendment didn’t deter Colorado from attacking Lorie’s freedoms of speech and conscience. That’s where the courts are supposed to step in. So Lorie and her attorneys at the Alliance Defending Freedom sued Colorado, seeking to vindicate her constitutional rights. But a federal district court judge rubber-stamped Colorado’s attack.
Read Full Article »