The Supreme Court will decide if Colorado’s public accommodation law banning discrimination against gays violates the First Amendment. A woman who wants to start a business for wedding websites is asking the courts to rule that she can reject business from same-sex couples. Mark Joseph Stern in Slate, February 22, 2022, notes that heretofore the Supreme Court has rejected the idea that civil rights laws compelled expression. “It has instead described such measures as regulations of conduct with ‘some incidental abridgment’ of speech, which is justified by the government’s ‘compelling interest in eradicating discrimination’ in public accommodations.”
David Harsanyi of the National Review, February 22, 2022, argues that Lorie Smith just wants to preserve her ability not to say things that run counter to her Christian beliefs.
Law professor Jonathan Turley, The Hill, February 24, 2022, thinks the First Amendment is best preserved by a decision that favors Smith. He writes, “Free speech offers a clear path and precedent for addressing these conflicts. For example, a Jewish baker asked to make a ‘Mein Kampf’ cake, or a Black baker asked to make a KKK cake, should be able to refuse those jobs as offensive to them. People may agree or disagree with their values; some may even boycott their stores. However, ‘public accommodation’ should not mean ‘compelled public speech.’”