OPINION:
“Agree to disagree.” We’re all familiar with this phrase. It has a few different meanings, from “Let’s end the discussion” to “We can disagree with each other and still respect each other’s right to say what we believe.”
The First Amendment embodies the latter concept. It prevents the government from coercing agreement through compelled speech or mandated silence.
But you may have noticed that this common expression has shifted in meaning recently. Today, some see disagreement as discrimination. “Agree to agree … or else” is often the new mantra.
That “else” often involves the government threatening or imposing punishment, fines, even jail time to compel speech to enforce ideological conformity.
When the government does this, we all run the risk of losing one of our most cherished, constitutionally protected rights: the freedom of expression.
But in a newly decided case, 303 Creative v. Elenis, the Supreme Court has reaffirmed that free speech is for everyone, not just those that the government sides with. The case is about Lorie Smith, a graphic artist who owns 303 Creative, a website design studio in Colorado.
Lorie creates one-of-a-kind websites and graphic art for causes she’s passionate about — such as animal rescue organizations and homeless shelters.
As the Supreme Court made clear, Lorie designs websites for everyone, including clients who identify as LGBTQ.
Lorie’s faith always guides her creations. Her designs must convey messages that are consistent with her beliefs, including custom websites celebrating God’s design for marriage.
But Colorado officials don’t like this last belief. They sought to compel Lorie to fall in line with their view of marriage and design custom websites that violate her beliefs or else.
Can Colorado do this? That was the question.
The Supreme Court said, absolutely not. The First Amendment prohibits the government from telling us what to say or what not to say.
This decision protects every American’s freedom to pursue truth and speak freely. Regardless of your thinking about marriage or any other topic, the Supreme Court’s affirmation of everyone’s freedom to speak consistently with their convictions is cause for celebration.
That freedom sometimes means protecting speech we disagree with. After all, the same freedoms that protect Lorie likewise ensure that an LGBTQ designer may decline a project criticizing same-sex marriage.
In those disagreements, the government must allow open and sincere dialogue instead of shuttering discourse by punishing competing views.
Today’s orthodoxy may become tomorrow’s heresy. What is popular changes over time.
That’s why we need the First Amendment. Ceding power to the government to censor anyone cedes the power to it to censor everyone.
Some want to change our great free-speech tradition by labeling ideas “offensive” or “hurtful.” That shortchanges the First Amendment. In our diverse society, the real work is in the push and pull of vigorous, honest and fair debate.
We all hold opinions that someone surely disagrees with. And the degree of disagreement increases with the importance of the issue. Like the game Operation, the closer we get to beliefs about what matters, the more likely we are to set off a buzzer.
But we shouldn’t be silent about our beliefs, deferring those difficult discussions to the government to do the talking for us. It’s not as if the government has a monopoly on the truth.
We should all value the freedom to pursue truth, ask important questions, and then speak and live in a way that is consistent with the answers we find.
This is rooted in love of neighbor and guarantees a peaceful and harmonious society.
For that reason, we should all be concerned when government officials — like Colorado officials tried to do here — act as referees calling foul on speech they disfavor.
It certainly concerned many artists who supported Lorie’s case even though they disagreed with her view of marriage. Those include a world-famous graphic designer, an award-winning Muslim photographer, and a baker who declined to create a custom cake criticizing same-sex marriage.
They recognized that free speech is sticky. But it’s also the glue that binds us together. Even — perhaps especially — when we disagree.
Thankfully, the Supreme Court affirmed those principles again in Lorie’s case. That’s a win for everyone.
• David Cortman is senior counsel and vice president of U.S. litigation with Alliance Defending Freedom (@ADFLegal), which represents Lorie Smith and 303 Creative.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.