It is possible to disagree with the Colorado website designer - who does not want to create websites that celebrate gay weddings. But, also believe that the principle of free speech and the freedom to associate (1A) is a far more important principle. Freedom means that sometimes people and businesses will hold beliefs and then act on those beliefs in ways that we disagree with. That is ok. The answer is not to prod government actors to force the labor of others. The answer is to allow the free market to crush or elevate them.
Another Colorado Case
The Supreme Court ruled on another free speech v. LGBTQ case this past week (303 Creative LLC v. ELENIS. This case involved a website designer (Lorie Smith) who wanted to expand her business and venture into the space of creating websites for weddings. The fear from Ms. Smith was that due to the Colorado “public accommodations” law that prohibits discrimination based on “sexual orientation” - that, if a gay couple requested her services that she would be forced to create a website that celebrated a gay wedding.
To be clear - Ms. Smith did not state that she would refuse to serve gay people. She argued that she did not want to be forced to create art (a website) that violated her particular religious convictions.
Think of it this way - if a gay person walked into a bakery and bought a cake off the shelf - she would sell it. If the gay person wanted the baker to create a custom cake that read “LGBTQ OR DIE” or “Fuck Your Religion” - the baker would argue that they have a right to refuse to perform that particular service based on religious beliefs.
With this ruling the Supreme Court carved out a significant exception to public accommodations laws - laws that in most states bar discrimination based on sexual orientation.
A Balancing Act
Most people do not want others to be discriminated against. In general we think that discrimination is a bad thing.
Also, most people believe that free speech is an important principle. Some of us (myself included) believe that free speech is the most important principle by a long shot.
This case and ideological battle is an example of when free speech crosses paths with discrimination laws.
In my opinion the scales weigh far heavier in favor of free speech. It is not close. It would be like the Jordan-era Chicago Bulls versus any team that Lebron was a part of. It would be a landslide victory of massive proportions.
Dishonest or Uneducated?
I was forwarded an Instagram/TikTok video that was made a by a gay doctor/social media influencer on this case (eric2687). I submitted a response and posted it to my various social media channels (watch here).
In short the doctor (Eric Burnett) said his “rights” were being taken away by the Supreme Court after this ruling. I think that Dr. Eric is confused on what constitutes a “right” and what constitutes his personal political preferences.
To probe a little deeper - exactly what “right” is he referring to? The right to force a religious person to create a website that violates their personal moral convictions? Unfortunately for Dr. Eric, he simply has no “right” to the labor of others. Just like a random person could not accost the doctor on the street and demand that he immediately diagnose and treat their ailments. If you disagree - please point to the specific section of the Constitution where the right to force the labor of others was guaranteed by the Founding Fathers.
Also, Dr. Eric said that the website designer “made up a scenario” about a gay couple “out of thin air” and questioned the legitimacy of the lawsuit. What really happened is that Colorado passed a law and Ms. Smith challenged the constitutionality of that law. This happens all the time. This is how the checks and balances of our government work. I am always happy to give a free civics lesson.
Dr. Eric is clearly a smart and educated person. So, either this issue is simply too close to home and he cannot analyze it rationally or he is being dishonest.
Intellectual Honesty
Even if you agree with Dr. Eric and think that I am on the wrong side of this one - this is where I guarantee that your argument breaks down.
Essentially, my ideological opposition takes the side that the website designer should be forced to create the website for the gay couple - even if it is against her religious convictions and shocks her moral conscience.
Ok. I just ask that you remain intellectually honest with that argument. Stay the course. So, here we go.
Then you are also arguing that a Jewish website designer be forced to create a website for a Nazi group.
Then you are also arguing that a website designer who runs a local Black Lives Matter chapter be forced to create a website for a police union.
Then you are also arguing that a doctor who builds websites on the side would be forced to create website for a Covid-denial activist group who believes that Covid was implanted by aliens via microwaves.
My ideological opposition argues that all of these website designers should not have the freedom to refuse to perform the work/create the art.
I believe that the freedom lies with the person performing the labor.
Now, I may disagree with the BLM or Christian website designer, and I can refuse to use that vendor. I can be vocal and encourage like-minded people join me and hope that businesses that openly discriminate suffer a Bud Light-style crushing under the beauty of the free market. But, that is the remedy. Let the free market work.
Final Thoughts
I find it ironic that I am taking the position of defending the Christian website designer who wants to discriminate against gay clients.
This is because I am not religious and have been an atheist for twenty-five years. I also am pro-gay marriage and believe that consenting adults can do what they want, and as long as they are not harming anyone else - the government should not interfere.
That is how strongly I feel about free speech. That I would argue: 1) the Christian website designer has bad ideas and 2) her right to free speech to spew those bad ideas is the most important principle.
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"1
Have a safe and happy July 4th holiday. Remember that we are free not because we all agree, but because we tolerate and allow different ideas. We must continue to discuss and debate ideas and not allow our personal political differences to drive a deep wedge between us - as we all have so much that bonds us together in this experiment.
From “The Friends of Voltaire” - Evelyn Hall