By Dr. Ryan M. Yonk
[LegalInsurrection] Indeed, at its core, 303 Creative v. Aubrey Elenis was not about whether a business may discriminate because of its own beliefs, but rather whether the state may compel speech of a particular opinion even out of a desire to achieve equal access in the marketplace.
The left’s response to the decision in 303 Creative v. Aubrey Elenis has largely been screeching that the Supreme Court has authorized open discrimination and the violation of “equal rights.” Despite progressives casting the case as being all about a graphic designer refusing to serve a particular community, the ruling was grounded in the stipulated fact that the creation of a website is an expressive act. That leaves no doubt that the law cannot compel an opinion in the marketplace—no matter how unpopular it may be.
As such, 303 Creative v. Aubrey Elenis was about nothing less than how far free speech extends in the United States. And thankfully, the court reaffirmed that our republic is still in the business of advancing, not curtailing, expression, for the act is key to our experiment in self-governance.
This case arose from the desire of Denver-based graphic designer Lorie Smith to expand the services of her business, 303 Creative, to couples seeking wedding websites. At the same time, she, an evangelical Christian, knew that her unwillingness to betray her belief that marriage is between one man and one woman would expose her to liability under the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act’s (CADA) exceedingly broad definition of a “public accommodation.” And potential penalties would have included fines, cease-and-desist orders, participation in mandatory educational programs, and submission of ongoing compliance reports.
Read the rest at the link 
|
