The First Amendment allows a Colorado graphic designer to refuse to make wedding websites for same-sex couples, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled Friday in a decision that could have a sweeping nationwide impact.

The high court ruled for Littleton graphic artist Lorie Smith, who said her Christian faith prevents her from creating wedding websites for same-sex couples. Smith, who runs the business 303 Creative, wanted to make wedding websites only for straight couples.

She challenged Colorado’s public accommodation law, which says that if she offers wedding websites to the public, she must provide them to all customers. Businesses that violate the law can be fined, among other penalties. Many states have such laws.

Justice Neil Gorsuch authored the 6-3 decision, in which the court’s conservative majority found that any wedding websites created by Smith would be expressive content protected by the First Amendment right to free speech, and that Colorado cannot force Smith to say or create messages that she does not believe.

“If she wishes to speak, she must either speak as the State demands or face sanctions for expressing her own beliefs,” Gorsuch wrote of Colorado’s law. “That is an impermissible abridgment of the First Amendment’s right to speak freely.”

The court noted that Smith has agreed she will work with people of all sexual orientations, and is only refusing to create wedding websites — and not other products — for same-sex couples. Smith brought the lawsuit against Colorado’s law proactively and has never refused to make a wedding website for a gay couple.

“…The opportunity to think for ourselves and to express those thoughts freely is among our most cherished liberties and part of what keeps our Republic strong,” Gorsuch wrote. “Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider ‘unattractive,’ ‘misguided, or even hurtful.’ But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is reversed.”

The court’s three liberal justices dissented. Justice Sonia Sotomayor called the ruling “profoundly wrong” in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Kentanji Brown Jackson. Sotomayor read the dissent aloud from the bench Friday in a sign of particular disagreement with the majority.

“Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in the lives of LGBT people,” she wrote. “The Supreme Court of the United States declares that a particular kind of business, though open to the public, has a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class. The Court does so for the first time in its history. By issuing this new license to discriminate…the immediate, symbolic effect of the decision is to mark gays and lesbians for second-class status. In this way, the decision itself inflicts a kind of stigmatic harm, on top of any harm caused by denials of service. The opinion of the Court is, quite literally, a notice that reads: ‘Some services may be denied to same-sex couples.’”

Smith’s supporters on Friday hailed the decision as a victory for free speech and religious freedom, while opponents — including President Joe Biden — said the decision erodes equal rights and opens the door for businesses to discriminate against people of all types.

“While the Court’s decision only addresses expressive original designs, I’m deeply concerned that the decision could invite more discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans,” Biden said in a statement. “More broadly, today’s decision weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations — including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith and women.”

U.S. Rep. Lauren Boebert, who represents Colorado’s Western Slope, referred to the court’s decision as “a HUGE victory for religious liberty” on Twitter.

Smith’s attorneys said in a statement Friday that the ruling was a win for “all Americans.”

“Disagreement isn’t discrimination, and the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it,” said Kristen Waggoner, general counsel for the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represented Smith.

Second challenge to Colorado’s law

Smith’s case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, is the second high-profile challenge to Colorado’s public accommodation law to pit religious beliefs against gay rights in recent years.

In 2018, baker Jack Phillips won a partial victory at the U.S. Supreme Court after he refused to make a wedding cake for a gay couple in 2012. Phillips has since refused to make a transgender transition cake; he was sued and most recently lost an appeal to the Colorado Court of Appeals, which upheld the state’s public accommodation law.

The narrow decision in Phillips’ 2018 U.S. Supreme Court case set up a return of the issue to the high court, and legal observers had expected a much broader ruling with wider implications in the 303 Creative case.

Christopher Jackson, a Colorado attorney at Holland and Hart, said Friday that the Supreme Court decision is couched by its reliance on a long list of case-specific facts, which could limit its impact in other cases that do not closely match Smith’s circumstances.

Expressive speech is different from routine commercial services, and discrimination in the latter is still illegal, Jackson added.

“The question would be, really, is it speech versus is it ordinary commercial conduct?” he said. “I think even this court would say if you are a diner and you’re (refusing to serve) people food — like sit-ins in the ’60s — that is still a violation of the public accommodation law because there’s no expressive conduct in serving people food, so it doesn’t violate the First Amendment.”

But where the line is drawn on what is protected speech and what is discrimination is now tougher to know, he said.

“You can’t compel wedding websites, we know that now,” he said. “But what about renting a venue, providing tables and chairs, what about providing floral arrangements? … There’s just scenario after scenario and hypothetical after hypothetical, and I don’t think we know the answer.”

AG vows to limit ruling’s scope

Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser vowed Friday to work to limit the scope and impact of the Supreme Court’s ruling, which he said creates a loophole — a First Amendment exception — to the state’s public accommodation law.

“It is clear this decision is not limited to one group — LGBTQ individuals — and it’s not limited to one type of expressive service — a website,” he said. “Booksellers, photographers and others are likely to be able to take advantage of this loophole.”

Weiser said the ruling was wrongly decided and must be overturned.

Brianna Titone, Colorado’s first openly transgender lawmaker, said Friday that the ruling was not unexpected, but still took her breath away.

“We worked so hard to fix these issues, to give people rights, and now just one decision after another from this court is eroding and creating cracks in all the progress we’ve made,” she said.

Colorado Gov. Jared Polis, the state’s first openly gay governor, said the U.S. Supreme Court is “increasingly obsessed with taking away freedoms.”

“These rulings run counter to Colorado values and we will continue to fight against bigotry and discrimination in all their ugly forms,” he said.

That sentiment was echoed by representatives of several Colorado organizations who gathered Friday to condemn the ruling and vowed to build an inclusive and welcoming environment for all people in the state.

“I know that businesses across Colorado and the majority of Coloradans disagree with this dangerous ruling and support LGBTQ+ equality,” said Nadine Bridges, executive director of One Colorado. “We call on all fair-minded businesses and owners to condemn discrimination and continue their longstanding commitment to treat everyone with dignity and respect.”

AJ Shaikh, chairperson at the Colorado LGBTQ Chamber of Commerce, also urged businesses to seek certification as LGBTQ-friendly through the chamber.

The Associated Press contributed to this report. 

Get more Colorado news by signing up for our daily Your Morning Dozen email newsletter.

Updated 8:30 a.m.: This story has been updated to correct the court’s vote in this case.