A divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Denver, applied the strictest form of judicial review to the law, but upheld it.
“Colorado has a strong interest in protecting both the dignity of members of marginalized groups and their vested interests in accessing the commercial market.” Judge Mary Beck Briscoe wrote on behalf of the majority, adding that the law narrowly aimed at satisfying these interests.
“Certainly,” Judge Briscoe wrote, “LGBT consumers can get wedding website design services from other companies; however, LGBT consumers will never be able to receive wedding-related services of the same quality and nature as those offered by applicants.”
Judge Briscoe added that “Colorado may ban speeches that promote illegal activities, including illegal discrimination.”
in disagreement, Chief Judge Timofey M. Tymkovichquoting George Orwell, said that “there is a remarkable — and new — position by the majority that the government can force Ms. Smith to publish messages that violate her conscience.”
“We seem to have gone from ‘live and let live’,” he wrote, ‘to ‘you can’t talk like that’.
Kristen Wagoner, a lawyer for Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Ms. Smith, said the anti-discrimination law violates the First Amendment’s protection of free speech. “Colorado has used its law as a weapon to silence people it disagrees with, force them to speak out it approves, and punish anyone who dares to disagree,” the statement said.
Jennifer S. Pizer, a lawyer at Lambda Legal, a civil rights organization focused on the LGBT community, said in a filing that the Supreme Court must “reaffirm and apply the longstanding constitutional precedent that our freedoms of religion and speech are not a license to discriminate” . when doing business.”