303 Creative LLC v. Elenis<\/a>. The owner of 303 Creative is Lorie Smith, a web designer from Colorado who wants to create wedding websites in accordance with her faith. However, the state made that impossible. Smith would be in violation of Colorado\u2019s anti-discrimination laws because she cannot in good faith celebrate same-sex wedding ceremonies.<\/p>\nTo many observers, the 303 Creative case is just the latest iteration in the long-running clash between LGBTQ rights and religion. Media headlines have portrayed the case as a zero-sum game; either religious individuals can operate their businesses and ministries in accordance with their beliefs, or LGBTQ individuals can access the services they need.<\/p>\n
One problem with this view is that it mischaracterizes the facts of the case. Colorado admits that Smith is willing to work with all people, regardless of a person\u2019s race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender. Indeed, the lower court judges acknowledged that she would willingly create a website celebrating a gay client\u2019s birthday. And had she refused to do so, there is no question that. Smith would have violated Colorado\u2019s anti-discrimination law.<\/p>\n
But the more central problem with this framing is that it fails to recognize what is truly at stake: All Americans, including Americans who are part of minority groups, have a right to have different beliefs without being threatened by the government to change them. That not only protects people like Lorie Smith, but everyone else who doesn\u2019t fall in line with what the majority says.\u00a0In this case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to put pluralism back on the table, to lead by example by showing all Americans what respecting people of good will looks like. \u00a0Dissent from society\u2019s prevailing norms and beliefs should not be outlawed or prosecuted by government entities. That goes for the fashion designer<\/a> who didn\u2019t want to create outfits for Melania Trump because of her political beliefs, or the rock band<\/a> that wanted to keep its name that the federal government considered disparaging to use. It also applies to any number of realistic hypotheticals: an African American singer who declines to perform the National Anthem for a white supremacist rally, a Jewish photographer that does not want to celebrate non-Jewish weddings, or a Muslim filmmaker who refuses to create films promoting Scientology.<\/p>\nThe ability to dissent is as American as apple pie; we have always had disagreements on issues of cultural, political, and theological significance. But that does not mean we should ever let the government force uniformity of belief. Pluralism means little if there are no differences. True diversity is defeated when government compels conformity. The Supreme Court should rule in favor of Lorie Smith and uphold the fundamental right of every American to follow their conscience.<\/p>\n
Daniel Chen is counsel at the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/div>\n \n