More and more, we are faced with coercive pressure to accept certain views, especially on gender and sexuality. Decline to put preferred pronouns in your email signature? You're demoted at work. A neighbor posts online that men and women are different biologically? He loses his job.
As these stories keep coming, the pressure keeps rising. Merely expressing certain views is considered "violence." Refusing to promote certain views is branded "discrimination." Holding certain views is considered "bigotry," making one ineligible to voice one's opinion or even earn a living for one's family. Fear is increasingly used to shut down good-faith debate.
But there is hope.
The U.S. Supreme Court has now decided 303 Creative v. Elenis and ruled for Lorie Smith, a graphic designer who challenged a Colorado law that required her to create websites celebrating same-sex weddings. Because of her beliefs, Lorie didn't want to promote a message through her art that she disagrees with, so she courageously challenged an unjust law to send a message we can all agree with: it's okay to disagree with government orthodoxy.
Of course, Lorie has always served and created all sorts of websites for members of the LGBT community. Like many artists, she can only create websites promoting certain views about marriage and many other topics for anyone, whether gay, straight, or anything else. Lorie doesn't consider who her clients are when evaluating a project. She happily serves everyone. She cares about what ideas she's asked to communicate or promote.
Nonetheless, Colorado—with support from the Biden administration and groups like the ACLU—still considered that position to be "discrimination" and wanted her prosecuted, even though Colorado conceded in court papers that Lorie serves her clients regardless of their sexual orientation. Yes, the state wanted to punish someone for violating its anti-discrimination law while simultaneously admitting she doesn't discriminate against anyone.
That pattern should sound familiar. It's repeated often across the country. In it, activists, officials, and many in power don't call for equal service, tolerance, and respect. Artists like Lorie Smith already provide that. No, these bullies demand ideological conformity. Change your mind and say what we tell you. Anything less gets called "discrimination" and triggers the government penalties necessary to ensure compliance and to make examples.
But the Supreme Court just dismantled that trope. As the Court explained, the state doesn't get to label ideas it dislikes "discrimination" as an excuse to punish dissent. Speech is speech. And censorship is censorship.
Likewise, the Court rejected the idea that merely hearing certain views causes trauma sufficient to override the right of speakers to say what they believe. Speech is not violence, exposure to differing views does not make someone unsafe, and the state's desire for conformity doesn't override your right to have your own beliefs. And yes, this ruling rightly protects both Lorie, who doesn't want to endorse same-sex marriage, and the LGBT web designer who doesn't want to condemn same-sex marriage. The First Amendment is big enough to cover both. And that's a good thing.
Legally, this is a landmark decision. Its logic should protect countless artists, professionals, business owners, government employees, nonprofits, and Americans from government coercion when they enter the marketplace. They should now be able to express common-sense views on gender and sexuality boldly, knowing that the primary arguments used to shut them down are now off the table.
Culturally, this result should greatly encourage us moving forward. As the Supreme Court's opinion shows, those pushing for ideological conformity on certain topics deploy arguments that just don't hold up, inside a courtroom or out. And as the example of Lorie Smith shows, standing up against these movements can make a difference. These acts in favor of freedom can be successful. Courageous action in favor of freedom for all is the antidote to fear-based conformity demanded by an ideological few.
The only real question now is whether there are enough people like Lorie in our jobs, in our schools, and in our local governments who are willing to take a stand for free speech. The outcome in Lorie's case gives us more reason to hope there are.
Jonathan Scruggs, senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal) and director of the ADF Center for Conscience Initiatives, is a member of the legal team representing Lorie Smith and 303 Creative.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Uncommon Knowledge
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
About the writer
To read how Newsweek uses AI as a newsroom tool, Click here.
