Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court handed down a series of decisions that the left less than pleased with. Among them was the free speech case of 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis in which Lorie Smith, a Christian website designer, objected to not serving LGBTQ+ customers, as the leftist narrative would like you to believe, but to messages that would go against her sincerely held Christian beliefs, namely designing websites celebrating same-sex marriage.
With the help of Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), Smith challenged a Colorado law that would compel her to violate her beliefs if she had to design websites for same-sex marriage. The syllabus of the opinion, authored by Justice Neil Gorsuch, explains it best:
Lorie Smith wants to expand her graphic design business, 303 Creative LLC, to include services for couples seeking wedding websites. But Ms. Smith worries that Colorado will use the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to compel her—in violation of the First Amendment—to create websites celebrating marriages she does not endorse. To clarify her rights, Ms. Smith filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent the State from forcing her to create websites celebrating marriages that defy her belief that marriage should be reserved to unions between one man and one woman.
The syllabus goes on to mention a crucial point about the case. One would hope that people would actually familiarize themselves with a case they feel so strongly about. At the very least they should read the syllabus, but that may be too much to ask, given the narrative:
Before the district court, Ms. Smith and the State stipulated to a number of facts: Ms. Smith is “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender” and “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for clients of any sexual orientation; she will not produce content that “contradicts biblical truth” regardless of who orders it; Ms. Smith’s belief that marriage is a union between one man and one woman is a sincerely held conviction; Ms. Smith provides design services that are “expressive” and her “original, customized” creations “contribut[e] to the overall message” her business conveys “through the websites” it creates; the wedding websites she plans to create “will be expressive in nature,” will be “customized and tailored” through close collaboration with individual couples, and will “express Ms. Smith’s and 303 Creative’s message celebrating and promoting” her view of marriage; viewers of Ms. Smith’s websites “will know that the websites are her original artwork;” and “[t]here are numerous companies in the State of Colorado and across the nation that offer custom website design services.”
Critics of the case come from the top, including from the Biden administration. Among the ridiculous narratives from President Joe Biden himself is to make a connection with the 303 Creative case being handed down at the end of Pride month. White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre, who has celebrated herself for being "historic" in part due to how she's the first openly gay person to hold the role, made that same point as well during Friday's press briefing.
As millions of Americans joined together to celebrate Pride month, the Supreme Court’s disappointing decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis undermines the basic truth that no person should face discrimination simply because of who they are or who they love.
— Joe Biden (@JoeBiden) July 1, 2023
We will accelerate…
KJP: LGBT 303 Creative ruling is "even more disappointing, as we close out 'Pride Month' today..." pic.twitter.com/G1G3vDfpwh
— Townhall.com (@townhallcom) June 30, 2023
Then there's reaction from Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg. His cabinet position doesn't have much, if anything, to do with the case at hand, but he's largely been defined by and celebrated by the left as being the first openly gay person confirmed to a cabinet position, rather than how much he's failed at this position.
Recommended
As Leah highlighted on Monday, Buttigieg appeared on CNN's "State of the Union" on Sunday, where he offered the case "is kind of a solution looking for a problem." He also made quite the claim in that "I think it’s very revealing that there’s no evidence that this web designer was ever even approached by anyone asking for a website for a same-sex wedding. Matter of fact, it appears this web designer only went into the wedding business for the purpose of provoking a case like this."
The secretary also used the ruling as a way to discuss "equality" issues. "In other words, sending these kinds of things to the courts and sending these kinds of things to state legislatures for the clear purpose of chipping away at the equality and the rights that have so recently been won in the LGBTQ+ community," he complained.
When asked for his thoughts on SCOTUS decision in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, Pete Buttigieg claims without evidence that Lorie Smith "only went into the wedding business for the purpose of provoking a case like this." pic.twitter.com/Ln6KTqsfbe
— Kevin Tober (@KevinTober94) July 2, 2023
Similarly, the state of Colorado is really upset that it keeps losing in court, and has been among those lashing out against the decision with a narrative claiming that Smith made it up that a same-sex couple was requesting her services.
A Monday article from The Hill explains that it was a man named "Stewart" who appears to have made the request for a website for a same-sex wedding, and that the request may or may not have even be real.
Colorado's position doesn't come in until the very end, but it's nevertheless a key illustration of how the left's narrative is lacking in facts:
At a Friday news conference following the Supreme Court’s ruling, Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser (D) said he didn’t know any details about the man’s denial of sending the request.
“Our position in this case has been there is no website development happening, there is no business operating,” he said. “This was a made-up case without the benefit of any real facts or customers. The Supreme Court in our view should never have decided this case or address the merits without any basis in reality.”
This is in addition to reports from The New Republic and the Associated Press. Although the former article comes from June 29, the Twitter account for The New Republic continues to tweet it.
Whatever the origin, this fake wedding website request is now part of the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case history, a bit of fan fiction joining the other phantom gays the case invokes.
— The New Republic (@newrepublic) July 4, 2023
https://t.co/VGGUEwk4ti
You need to get halfway through the article for the AP to admit that Colorado didn’t even view it as a real request and it isn’t actually important to the case… https://t.co/nRyqywLTVc pic.twitter.com/wgbmL9PbEE
— AG (@AGHamilton29) July 3, 2023
ADF released a press release on Monday with strong words about the focus of such a narrative looking to "set the record straight."
"To say that Lorie Smith or ADF fabricated a request for a same-sex wedding website is a lie. It would make no sense to have fabricated a request because one wasn’t required for the court to decide her case. To pretend that a request that nowhere featured in the Supreme Court’s decision was at ‘the heart’ of the case demonstrates an ignorance regarding the legal principles involved. And it’s telling that many who push this false narrative can’t bring themselves to consider the more likely scenario that ‘Stewart’ or another activist did in fact submit the request," ADF's Kristen Waggoner, who successfully argued the case before the Court, said in part.
"Perhaps the most appalling episode in this entire spectacle is the state of Colorado’s demonstrably false statements to media about the case," Waggoner said about Weiser's claims.
The press release also notes that his claim:
... "directly contradicts the facts to which the state stipulated, which make the attorney general’s statement to the media demonstrably false. Smith incorporated 303 Creative in 2012, four years before the lawsuit was filed. Colorado admitted to the court that Smith offers her website and graphic design to the public (Colorado Brief in Opposition, p. 5) and it stipulated that 303 Creative is a for-profit limited liability company organized under Colorado law and that, as a Colorado place of business, it regularly provides graphic and website design services. (Stipulations 42, 45, 71, 92, 93). The state also conceded that her website designs are expressive and communicate a message, that she “gladly” works with all people, including those who identify as LGBT, and that her decisions on what custom graphics and websites to create are based on the message. (Stipulations 47, 64-65).
Other crucial details mentioned in the press release include how "Smith’s case was a pre-enforcement challenge, which allows people to avoid the choice between risking prosecution or giving up their freedom. Pre-enforcement lawsuits have been a hallmark of America’s tradition of civil-rights litigation for over a hundred years. And the Supreme Court has ruled on more than a dozen pre-enforcement cases in the last ten years. Pre-enforcement challenges have been brought by parties across the ideological spectrum. This includes the ACLU, the Southern Poverty Law Center, Lambda Legal Defense and Education Fund, to name a few."
Whether or not the case dealt in hypotheticals has led to hysteria from the left, and questions about standing. That's where chatter about the case on social media comes into play, with "10th Circuit" trending on Twitter. Even though the 10th Circuit had ruled against Smith in July of 2021, they found that she indeed had standing.
I really don’t understand the confusion. Standing was addressed by the 10th Circuit in its opinion on the case, acknowledged by Justice Gorsuch in his majority opinion, and not challenged by the parties.
— S. Easland (@sdeasland1) July 3, 2023
303 Creative brought a Declaratory Relief action which is allowed under… pic.twitter.com/N1Qarg0aMM
Waggoner also retweeted a thread addressing this narrative, with Waggoner referring to it as "a desperate, bad faith attempt to undermine the ruling that protects speech for everyone." She also explained that "Lorie received a request from a third party through her website. It’s true and undisputed. Whether it was a troll or genuine, she doesn’t know because had she followed-up and declined, Colorado threatened she’d be breaking the law."
YES.
— Kristen Waggoner (@KWaggonerADF) July 2, 2023
This is a desperate, bad faith attempt to undermine the ruling that protects speech for everyone.
Lorie received a request from a third party through her website. It’s true and undisputed. Whether it was a troll or genuine, she doesn’t know because had she followed-up and… https://t.co/X6ORmQcZdZ
This is the dumbest controversy imaginable.
— AG (@AGHamilton29) July 2, 2023
1) The case in question was a pre-enforcement action so the referenced request wasn’t really necessary for the case.
2) Both sides (including Colorado) stipulated to the facts to the District Court. The SCOTUS opinion assumes those… https://t.co/9sRIaSPZx3
It doesn't matter if "Stewart" is a troll, or if he really made the request or not. You play stupid games, win stupid prizes. Are we to believe that "Stewart" really didn't think anything would come out of such a request? If that is, in fact the case, it then appears to be the claim of a woefully ignorant person or someone looking to woefully mislead others.
Americans look to be evenly split on the decision, at least when it comes to polling which may or may not be accurate considering how the case has been framed. An ABC News/Ipsos poll released on Sunday found that by a 43-42 split, respondents approved of the case, which asked if they approved or disapproved of the Court deciding "that a website designer can deny services to same-sex customers seeking a wedding website." Fourteen percent said they didn't know.
Not only could the question be seen as awkwardly phrased, but reporting from ABC News shows the particular narrative at hand. "Another landmark decision was handed down this week by the Supreme Court, which ruled for an evangelical Christian website designer in a case involving whether creative businesses can refuse to serve LGBTQ+ customers, citing free speech under the First Amendment," the report mentioned.
