Among an impressive lineup of Western Conservative Summit speakers in Aurora last weekend was Lori Smith, an artist who finds herself at the center of another blockbuster legal and cultural battle the Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review.

Smith founded and operates 303 Creative, a Colorado-based graphic and website design company. She founded 303 with a commitment to promote causes consistent with her beliefs. Once an atheist, she became a Christian while actively crusading against religion.

She contracts to produce art that supports children with disabilities, heterosexual weddings, overseas missions, animal shelters and veterans. If it doesn’t fall within those lines, she typically takes a pass because she can’t put her heart and soul into the work. She would likely decline to design for a group of able-bodied children – i.e. a soccer team. She has limited bandwidth and prefers to focus on disabled children.

Lots of creative professionals devote themselves to expressions that promote or reflect what’s important to them. The famed photographer John Fields photographs Colorado in all its natural beauty, not New Jersey. Marina Abramovi?’s art celebrates feminism. Horse artists draw, sculpt and photograph horses.

Imagine a country in which the government could force Abramovi? to contract with a men’s rights organization so she wasn’t discriminating on the basis of gender.

Artists make money by creating works and selling them, or by contracting with people to create art that falls within their chosen specialties or purviews. In this case, the distinction between those business models means everything.

Smith used to devote a portion of her creative work to designing artistic websites for weddings. She celebrates marriages between men and women but doesn’t share the same passion for same-sex marriages. It simply does not comport with her religious convictions, whether anyone likes it or not.

The same non-discrimination law the Colorado Civil Rights Commission used to bully Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips in Westminster prevents Smith from discerning which artistic expressions she will or will not produce. As such, she no longer designs wedding art for anyone.

Phillips declined to design cake art for same-sex marriages. The Supreme Court found the Civil Rights Commission guilty of essentially committing a hate crime against the baker, but it did not rule on the merits of the artist’s right to decline designing art he was not enthused about.

Because that question remains in limbo, the court will hear 303 v. Elenis (Aubrey Elenis, director of the Colorado Civil Rights Division) in the fall and will rule next spring.

This may seem difficult, but it isn’t.

We would cringe and protest if Smith were retailing art and refused to sell a pre-made product to a same-sex couple. We cannot and should not discriminate on a basis of sexual orientation in the marketplace of products, homes, housing or services. We must uphold discrimination in contracts for specialized services.

The Smith case involves something other than objective free trade. It is not as if she sells wedding dresses and tuxedos. She contracts to deliver powerful expressions however she sees fit, as protected by the First Amendment.

Government cannot force nor prevent a newspaper from publishing any particular opinion piece, no matter how objectionable. The Supreme Court has made clear the First Amendment applies no more to The New York Times than to a homeless street pamphleteer.

Because of the First Amendment, the government cannot stop a Satanic artist from painting a giant horned goat head and selling it in the open market. Doing so would quash the artist’s freedom of expression. The government can’t even restrain the ugly, hateful signs of an anti-LGBTQ cult that taunts mourners at military funerals.

If the government cannot suppress expression, it certainly cannot compel it by punishing those who decline to produce particular artistic expressions. If it could do so, only our imaginations limit the harmful potential.

The state could compel a white supremacist to portray Martin Luther King, Jr. It could force an atheist artist to paint a crucifix whenever a customer demands it. If authorities compel artistic expression, art and free speech mean nothing.

This is not a case about upholding conventional rights for members of the LGBTQ community. If it were, we would support the state. It’s about enforcing the First Amendment and freedom of expression for everyone without regard for the values of the state, popular sentiment, or the mores of the majority.

Colorado Springs Gazette editorial board