Dozens of groups, ranging from free speech scholars and state attorneys general to all three of Colorado’s Republican members of Congress, have submitted briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court urging it to hear the appeal of a Colorado woman whose Christian faith will not permit her to create wedding websites featuring same-sex couples.

Lorie Smith is petitioning the nation’s highest court after the federal appeals court based in Denver ruled in July that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law compelled her to create content for same-sex and opposite-sex weddings alike. Smith, the owner of graphic and website design company 303 Creative, maintained that the government could not force her to violate her religious beliefs,  specifically that marriage is between a man and a woman.

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office and other defenders of the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act believe the law is narrowly-tailored to ensure businesses do not discriminate based on a protected characteristic: sexual orientation.

Smith’s backers, though, argue her First Amendment rights are paramount.

Anti-discrimination laws “are important tools to eliminate specific kinds of invidious discrimination. But the First Amendment’s Free Speech Clause forbids States from using public-accommodation laws to compel the expression of citizens who create custom speech for a living,” wrote the attorneys general of 16 states, led by Nebraska and Arizona.

Fifteen U.S. senators and 29 U.S. representatives, all Republicans, also submitted a brief suggesting Colorado could exempt “message-based services” from the the anti-discrimination law, which would leave “the vast majority” of LGBTQ protections in place. U.S. Reps. Lauren Boebert, Ken Buck and Doug Lamborn were among the signatories to the brief.

More bluntly, one collection of conservative groups – including one whose website links to an article titled “Is Voting Democrat an Evil Act in God’s Eyes?” – called state anti-discrimination laws “a step on the road to Fascism.”

By a 2-1 decision, a panel for the 10th Circuit upheld CADA, as the state’s anti-discrimination law is known, while acknowledging that it compelled Smith to endorse a viewpoint at odds with her religious beliefs. The dissenting member of the panel, Chief Judge Timothy M. Tymkovich, blasted the majority’s reasoning for forcing her to deliver a “government-approved message.”

“This is viewpoint discrimination on steroids,” argued the Institute for Faith and Family and the Jewish Coalition for Religious Liberty in their Supreme Court brief. Quoting from Tymkovich, an appointee of President George W. Bush, the groups wondered whether the 10th Circuit decision meant Colorado could compel Muslim or atheist artists to also create products that were at odds with their belief systems.

The brief also contended that the same free speech protections that allowed LGBTQ Americans to gain rights in recent decades were now being denied to others.

Through CADA, a group of 17 First Amendment scholars elaborated, “Colorado has inserted itself into the marketplace of ideas. Acting not as an umpire calling balls and strikes, but rather as a censor, Colorado targets specific speech based on the content of the speaker’s expression.” The scholars also rejected the 10th Circuit majority’s belief that because Smith is participating in the marketplace, rather than doing charity work, the state may regulate her speech-based services.

Under CADA, it is illegal to deny access to goods and services in places of public accommodation, meaning businesses, based on sexual orientation. Smith maintains she will not discriminate against LGBTQ clients, only that she seeks to advertise on her company website that she will not design wedding websites for marriages that are not between a man and a woman.

The case is reminiscent of the Supreme Court’s 2018 decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, in which a Lakewood baker refused to create a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. Although the Court’s majority concluded it was “unexceptional that Colorado law can protect gay persons,” it decided in favor of the cake shop for reasons specific to that case.

The justices have agreed to hear at least four religious liberty cases in their current term, which include questions of state funding for faith-based curricula and whether religious advisors can be in contact with death row inmates in Texas at the time of their execution.

The Colorado Attorney General’s Office has until Dec. 8 to respond to Smith’s Supreme Court petition.

The case is 303 Creative et al. v. Elenis et al.