Supreme Court Rules: You Cannot Be Made to Bake the Cake

This is a fantastic day on the United States Supreme Court.

Across the United States, over the past decade, Christian businesses have been willfully subjected to targeting by the activist Alphabet Gang. Christian business owners have been made to care by the left. They must either provide goods and services to gay weddings or be put out of business.

Most pernicious is that of Jack Philips, who activists and the State of Colorado have repeatedly targeted for punishment. Mr. Philips makes artistic cakes and both gay and trans activists have tried to force him to make cakes celebrating them. Because of his faith convictions, Mr. Philips does not even make cakes for Halloweens or second marriages. The State of Colorado has punished him repeatedly and the Supreme Court has had to intervene.

Today, in 303 Creative, the Supreme Court ruled on a website designer, Lorie Smith. Under Colorado law, the designer would be forced to use her skills to design websites for gay marriages. A faithful Christian who believes marriage is between a man and woman, the designer chose to fight the Colorado law that would punish her for living her faith in public.

The Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision by Neil Gorsuch, ruled that Ms. Smith’s talents are pure speech protected by the First Amendment and she cannot be forced to use her talents to support causes she does not support. "If anything is truly dispiriting here, it is the dissent’s failure to take seriously this Court’s enduring commitment to protecting the speech rights of all comers, no matter how controversial—or even repugnant—many may find the message at hand," Gorsuch wrote.

“In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance. In the past, other States in Barnette, Hurley, and Dale have similarly tested the First Amendment’s boundaries by seeking to compel speech they thought vital at the time. But, as this Court has long held, 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. Of course, abiding the Constitution’s commitment to the freedom of speech means all of us will encounter ideas we consider “unattractive,” post, at 38 (opinion of SOTOMAYOR, J.), “misguided, or even hurtful,” Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574. But tolerance, not coercion, is our Nation’s answer. The First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands. Because Colorado seeks to deny that promise, the judgment is

“Reversed.”

This is a big win.

It is also worth noting that the Supreme Court’s three progressives have now, in two consecutive days, advocated for racial discrimination and state compelled speech codes.