Regarding the 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis case, the U.S. Supreme Court was not asked to decide whether Lorie Smith should or should not design a wedding website for a same-sex couple but instead whether the government should compel her to do so. The court ruled correctly in dictating that such force would constitute a violation of her First Amendment right to freedom of speech.

Lorie Smith, a website designer and owner of 303 Creative, believes, based on her religion, that marriage is between a man and a woman. As such, when she considered extending her website design services to soon-to-be-wed couples, she wanted to ensure the State of Colorado would not force her to violate her beliefs and coerce her to design a wedding website for a same-sex couple.

303 Creative decision exacerbates marginalization | COUNTERPOINT

Do you disagree with Lorie’s beliefs on marriage? You’re welcome to do so. It seems the vast majority of Coloradans do. Thankfully, your right to express your beliefs is not limited to what is universally popular at any given moment.

Freedom of speech must be absolute. My well-meaning counterpart states that this decision could exacerbate stigmatization and marginalization. Worthwhile considerations, no doubt, for how we conduct ourselves in greater society, but not worthwhile considerations when it comes to the First Amendment and government’s role in regulating speech. As the Supreme Court ruled in Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian, and Bisexual Group of Boston (1995), speech protections must extend to “content that in someone’s eyes are misguided, or even hurtful.”

I’d argue that such speech is precisely why the First Amendment is so important. In a democratic republic, rarely is popular speech subject to regulation and censorship. Instead, it is the dissenting, the disagreeable, and the derogatory that needs to be protected.

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

Lorie Smith’s grave sin was not that she had deeply held opinions but instead that those opinions were the wrong ones. Smith’s beliefs are offensive and wrong to many, if not most, but those believing that she should be coerced to utilize her artistic talents to further something that violates her conscience seem to miss the point of the First Amendment entirely.

Whether or not you believe in same-sex marriage, the court’s decision in this case reaffirms the absoluteness of free speech in the United States. Just as you have the right to speak freely, regardless of polling on any issue, you have the right to not be compelled by your government to speak against your will. That is an ideal worth protecting for generations to come.

If you’re wondering, as I have been a website and graphic designer for years, I would do and have done design work for a same-sex wedding. That’s my choice, and it should remain a choice for everybody else as well.

Sage Naumann is a conservative commentator and strategist. He is vice president of communications at 76 Group and was previously the spokesman for the Colorado Senate Republicans. Follow him on Twitter @SageNaumann.