2
A Colorado website designer, Lorie Smith, helps bring people’s visions to the screen. A
website will depict and show people who you are and what you are about. 1 Corinthians 16: 13
states, “Be on your guard; stand firm3in the faith; be courageous; be strong.” (NIV, 2011). Lorie
chose to do just that by standing by her beliefs within her religion to help shape and grow her
business. Lorie planned to “(1) design wedding websites promoting her understanding of
marriage, and (2) post a statement explaining that she can only speak messages consistent with
her faith.” Since Lorie put limitations on her business, Colorado decided to come after her for the
Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act (CADA). This required Lorie to create custom websites
celebrating same-sex marriage and prohibited her statements about her understanding of
marriage promoted within the wedding websites she designed.
The precedent that Colorado is setting is that their laws come before our First
Amendment rights, which states, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.” Colorado attempted to silence Lorie Smith's statements and beliefs
utilizing CADA as the vector. In that, CADA seemingly violates the 14th Amendment regarding
this situation. The 14th Amendment states, "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive
any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within
its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." This shows that CADA is infringing on Lorie
Smith’s rights and violates her religious beliefs.
A recent article published within the last month by Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)
seems to target the issues of the government infringing on the First Amendment rights of its
3
citizens. The article highlights many U.S. Supreme Court cases concerning speech transmitted
via social media and digitally. The article indicates that the government is attempting to gauge
the limitations and influence they can assert on the First Amendment. Though some cases pertain
to liability issues towards social media platforms, this censorship is the most visible. It has direct
government involvement due to the government applying pressure to social media platforms.
4
References
Cope, S., Greene, D., Mackey, A., & Gilligan, B. (2023, December 27).3The U.S.
Supreme Court’s Busy Year of Free Speech and Tech Cases: 2023 Year in Review.
Electronic Frontier Foundation. Retrieved January 29, 2024, from
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2023/12/2023-year-review-us-supreme-courts-busy-year-
free-speech-and-tech-cases
NIV (n.d.).31 Corinthians 16:13 New International Version. Bible Gateway. Retrieved
January 29, 2024, from https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?
search=1+Corinthians+16%3A13b&version=NIV
(n.d.).33The Bill of Rights: A Transcription. National Archives. Retrieved January 29,
2024, from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/bill-of-rights-transcript
(2022, February 22).321-476 303 CREATIVE LLC V. ELENIS. Supreme Court. Retrieved
January 29, 2024, from https://www.supremecourt.gov/qp/21-00476qp.pdf
(n.d.).3The Constitution: Amendments 11-27. America's Founding Documents. Retrieved
January 29, 2024, from https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/amendments-11-27
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
