for same-sex couples, despite the state's law barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, among other factors. The court agreed with Smith and her lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom that the state cannot compel Smith to express a view she opposes via a website she has created.
“Were the rule otherwise, the better the artist, the finer the writer, the more unique his talent, the more easily his voice could be conscripted to disseminate the government's preferred messages,” Gorsuch wrote. “That would not respect the First Amendment; more nearly, it would spell its demise.” The Supreme Court's ruling reflects that framing. Smith’s design services are “expressive,” the court said. As such, they convey a message about her views – and, according to the Supreme Court, that message cannot be controlled by the state.
Certainly, florists, photographers and videographers can contend that their services are as expressive as Smith’s website designs. In fact, at oral arguments Waggoner explicitly referred to photographs as an expression of the photographer’s speech, noting that Pulitzer prizes are awarded to the people who make images, not to the subjects of their photos.
“It means that any provider of expressive services is entitled to put up a sign saying we do not serve people with particular characteristics whenever they believe that serving those people would change their message,” Fletcher said. Conservative justices, including Gorsuch and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, countered with hypotheticals asking whether governments can compel public relations firms or speechwriters to provide services to clients whose views they oppose. Gorsuch asked, for instance, whether Colorado’s law would require a public relations firm to write a press release for the Church of Scientology.