Most Americans assume that they can say what they wish — even if it doesn't match the government's views — without incurring the government's wrath. Sure, they know they may lose friends and endure harsh criticisms, but they're not worried that the crushing weight of government will force them into silence.
Regrettably, many people can no longer assume such fundamental freedom. The case of Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips, who has had to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to restore the freedom the state of Colorado denied him, illustrates this truth. Now we also see the struggle for freedom in the case of Lorie Smith, another creative professional fighting Colorado's discriminatory application of its law to pick winners and losers — allowing "free speech" for those who hold the state's views and punishing those who speak competing views. Unfortunately for Lorie, she, like Jack, falls in the "competing views" camp that Colorado singles out for special punishment.
Lorie's Christian faith teaches her that marriage is only between a man and a woman. She even believes, as President Obama once said, that "a man and a woman, when they get married, are performing something before God." As a graphics and website designer who owns and operates 303 Creative LLC, Lorie wants to use her God-given talents to promote this view of marriage through custom wedding websites and a public statement on her company's website expressing her religious beliefs. But the state of Colorado makes this illegal.
If you run a Colorado business that provides services to the public, it is illegal to "discriminate" on certain bases, including "sexual orientation." That should mean that you can't turn someone away simply because they are homosexual or heterosexual, something Lorie does not do. But Colorado officials have gone much further. They use the law to force creative professionals to express messages that violate their deepest beliefs and to ban them from expressing the messages they desire.
For example, if Lorie uses her business to promote marriage as a lifelong union between one man and one woman by creating custom websites celebrating those marriages, Colorado will force her to make websites promoting same-sex marriages. Colorado doesn't care that Lorie's religious beliefs prevent her from celebrating any marriage other than one between a man and a woman. And to add insult to injury, Lorie can't directly or indirectly publish any religious beliefs about God's design for marriage if they so much as indicate — in Colorado's opinion — that a request to promote same-sex marriage would be "unwelcome, objectionable, unacceptable, or undesirable."
Of course, Lorie saw this play out with Jack Phillips. After he declined to create a custom wedding cake celebrating a same-sex marriage, Colorado officials turned his life upside down. It didn't matter to them that Jack, like Lorie, is happy to serve gays and lesbians. What mattered is that he wouldn't say what Colorado wanted him to say: Celebrate same-sex marriage!
Skeptical? Consider Colorado's treatment of three other cake artists. Did they commit religious discrimination when they declined to create cakes for a Christian customer expressing the religious view that same-sex marriage is wrong? Not according to the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which reasoned that it was not religious discrimination because the bakers were willing to serve Christians and simply objected to the religious message a Christian wanted them to convey. But when it came to Jack, the commission didn't care that he had an equivalent defense. It found him guilty of discrimination and ordered that he be punished. In other words, the commission rejected the fundamental principle of "Equal Justice Under Law" — the critical promise inscribed on the face of the U.S. Supreme Court.
For those who won't toe the line, Colorado offers a range of potential penalties to compel ideological conformity, including burdensome investigations, fines of up to $500 per violation, and mandatory re-education training. With such coercive penalties, it's no surprise that Lorie is currently unwilling to violate the law by expressing her religious message about marriage. Neither is she inclined to sit back while Colorado tramples her expressive freedom. That's why she took the only reasonable step she could take under the circumstances — she went to court. She's asking a federal court to tell Colorado that it can't prevent her from speaking her religious message about marriage and that it certainly can't force her to speak a message that violates her beliefs.
The government has no business mandating what is orthodox on matters of opinion or belief, yet that is exactly what is afoot in Colorado. And we all ought to pull for Lorie and Jack to prevail because once the government has the power to stamp out dissent on one issue, it can and — as history teaches us — will use that power to crush opposition to government views on other issues as well.
Lorie and Jack may or may not be fighting for the freedom to express views you share. But make no mistake, they are fighting for your freedom, and the outcome of their cases could significantly impact how much freedom you will enjoy.
Samuel Green is legal counsel for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Lorie Smith and Jack Phillips in their respective lawsuits to restore their freedom in Colorado. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
