The Supreme Court’s decision in 303 Creative v. Elenis is a crucial victory for every American regardless of their religious, political, or ideological views. In that case, the Supreme Court reaffirmed the most fundamental of civil liberties—that the government may not tell people what to think or say. The decision upholds a great constitutional tradition of valuing and protecting speech not for its content but because individual freedom of thought and mind is our most basic liberty. As the Supreme Court said, “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.”

The Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment prohibits government from compelling people to speak in violation of their most deeply held beliefs. Indeed, had 303 Creative come out differently, we’d be living in an America where the government has the power to tell citizens what to say and not say. That would be an America with much less freedom and much more government authoritarianism.

Given the incontrovertible speech principles at stake, the decision’s detractors resort to distorting the facts of the case. Let’s set the record straight: It is undisputed that Lorie Smith, the Colorado website designer in 303 Creative, willingly serves people from all walks of life and currently has clients who identify as LGBT. She chooses which websites to create based on the requested message, not the person requesting. There are simply some messages Lorie cannot create—messages that denigrate other people, messages that celebrate infidelity, messages that criticize our armed forces members, or messages that violate her most deeply held religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman.

The same is true for artists from all sorts of backgrounds who want their art to communicate only messages with which they agree.

SUPREME COURT RULES IN FAVOR OF COLORADO GRAPHIC DESIGNER WHO REFUSED TO CREATE SAME-SEX WEDDING WEBSITES

The decision in 303 Creative rejects the dark days in our nation’s history where people were refused service because of the color of their skin or the faith they profess. Federal and state public-accommodation laws will continue to apply to millions of transactions every single day, ensuring that goods and services are not denied to anyone. In short, nondiscrimination principles remain firmly in place under the Supreme Court’s decision.

It is Colorado and its anti-speech allies’ cramped view of the First Amendment that is liberty-destroying and would fundamentally reshape America for the worse. During oral argument, Colorado admitted that its claimed power to force Lorie to craft and create government-preferred messages would upend free speech law. The state was forthright that, under its theory of the First Amendment, government could not only force Lorie to create websites celebrating same-sex marriage, but it could also force LGBT designers to create wedding websites celebrating opposite-sex marriages. This would mean a Black sculptor who created a cross for the Catholic church could be forced to design one for the Aryan church, too. This would be a brave new world indeed.

The Supreme Court once flirted with authorizing the government to compel individuals to speak, with disastrous results. In the infamous Minersville School District v. Gobitis decision, the Supreme Court upheld the expulsion of young children from school for failing to pledge allegiance to the flag. In the Supreme Court’s war-influenced view, the government’s interest in national unity allowed it to force young children to speak in violation of both their deeply held beliefs and parental instruction.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE OPINION NEWSLETTER

Justice Harlan Stone penned a powerful dissent. He explained that the “very essence” of liberty “is the freedom of the individual from compulsion as to what he shall think and what he shall say.” He wrote that the “guarantees of civil liberty are but guarantees of freedom of the human mind and spirit and of reasonable freedom and opportunity to express them.” The First Amendment thus presupposes the right of every American to hold and express opinions—to attempt to persuade others by the communication of ideas. If these civil liberties have any meaning, Stone warned, they must prohibit government from compelling the expression of belief.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

Gobitis unleashed a wave of unprecedented discrimination and violence against Jehovah’s Witnesses. And just three short years later, the Supreme Court reversed course in West Virginia v. Barnette. The court held that there is no single constitutional principle more important than that no government official, however high or petty, should be allowed “to prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion.” These principles are still fundamental to our civil liberties. If the government has power over a person’s very words, our guaranteed constitutional rights are rendered meaningless.

Whatever one thinks about marriage, we should all be able to agree that the freedom to think and speak consistently with the very core of who we are is the fundamental component of our civil liberties. It keeps the government from invading that most sacred space of heart and mind. Words are powerful and can change history. The Supreme Court’s decision affirming that each of us is free to pursue truth and say what he or she believes is a victory for all of us.

Erin Hawley is senior counsel with Alliance Defending Freedom.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM KRISTEN WAGGONER

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM ERIN HAWLEY