I have been
really curious
about this case, as so many people have.
And frankly,
there's been about a little divide
about this
issue in the sense of who can tell who,
what to do and what they can do about it.
It's kind of the old,
old question of the time.
And I want to start with you, Laurie,
and really understand
your position or a bit more
but this is not a case
that was filed against her.
This is not somebody who is suing you.
This is almost a proactive opportunity.
You're taking
I understand,
to figure out, look,
can I expand into the wedding
website business
and not run afoul of Colorado's law
that says
you cannot
discriminate against same sex couples.
Tell me about
why you wanted to bring this case
now before you actually even entered
into the wedding.
Website business.
Really?
Sure.
Well, I am a custom
graphic and website designer.
I create unique
one of a kind of websites and speech.
And yes,
I want to design for weddings
and I want to design in a way that's
consistent with my faith.
But Colorado is censoring
and compelling my speech
and forcing me to create
custom artwork custom expression
that goes against the core of who I am
and what I believe.
So everyone has the right to
to not only speak,
but to create consistently
with what they believe in.
At the core of my cases
is just that
everyone should be free to create
artwork, unique artwork,
and that that goes along
with what they believe
whether their views are similar to mine
or perhaps
different on the topic of marriage.
Nobody should be forced to create
a message
that goes against the core
of who they are.
The words I'm hearing,
a stand out are custom create
art and speech. Yes.
And those four really combined
to be the heart of this entire issue.
On the issue of custom,
just so we're clear,
these are
templates that you are putting out.
Somebody has to essentially contract
with you specifically,
and they have a vision
of how they want the website to go.
And then you create that
per couple or per customer.
Is that right? Absolutely correct.
Everything that I create is unique.
One of a kind No.
Two graphics or websites are the same.
They're unique in nature,
and everything that I create
is expression of some sort.
I have clients
from all different walks of life.
I have clients who identify as LGBT,
but I cannot create every message
that is requested of me.
There are some messages
I can't create,
no matter who requests them.
And the state of Colorado is saying,
you must set aside
your beliefs
to communicate a message
that goes against what you believe.
That should be frightening to all of us.
Nobody should be forced to communicate
a message
that goes against the core
of who they are.
Who has forced you to do that?
Well, the state of Colorado has said
if you create custom artwork
that's consistent with your faith,
that you must set aside
your faith to create websites
that promote a message about marriage.
That goes against my beliefs.
Nobody should be put in that position.
And so I'm my
my case is not only about me
and my artwork, but
also protecting the LGBT artist
or graphic designer
who should not be forced
to create custom artwork
that opposes same sex marriage.
So no one. Just so I'm clear.
No one's yet
asked you to create a website for a same
sex couple
you're talking about this
as a speculative notion
that it might happen one day.
You don't want it.
So someone has asked,
I have had requests for say,
What have you done?
I'm unable
to enter the wedding industry
because the Colorado law
would come after me
and treat me in a way that's consistent
with the way it's treated
other people of faith.
So I took a stand to
not only protect my right,
but the right of everyone.
Everyone should be free to create artwork
consistent with what they believe.
And so I shouldn't have to sit around
and wait to be punished
To to really challenge
this unjust law in Colorado.
So in just thinking about this,
I want to bring you in here, Kristin,
because as you can imagine, there were
and I'm sure you heard today
so many people
and we're
talking about different analogies
and the slippery slope, as they say,
the idea of, well,
if they let you do this,
then we got to let
everyone else do something
that is going to
in some way harm people discriminatory.
What do you make of the idea that, look,
if Colorado
or the Supreme Court
really were to say now, no, you can.
You're an artist. I appreciate that.
But if you avail yourself to the public,
generally,
you can't
then turn down certain people
because if you do, others will follow you
in terms of religion,
in terms of race, in terms of disability.
What do you make of that connection
to your client?
That this could cause a slippery slope
no matter how the court rules?
In Morris
case, it's still illegal
to turn someone away
because of who they are.
The critical distinction
that the justices made today in the case
is that it's based on what the messages
not who they are,
it's based on the message
and not who the person is.
And Lori has LGBT clients.
She's always looking at the message.
Every graphic design
artist, every artist and speaker
wants to have the right
to make distinctions based on message.
And even the United States
and the court
today agreed with that premise.
The government can't compel you
to say something that you don't believe.
So the question really is,
how is it your message
if it's their wedding?
Everything that I
create is unique and one of a kind.
And there's an important process
of determining
what the message or messages are
that I'm being asked to create.
And again, I'm carefully
considering what
those are always
about, the message or messages,
never about the individual.
But then I'm using a custom
we're not talking about
templates, plug and play.
I'm creating from scratch
very much like a traditional watercolor
artist uses a white canvas.
I'm starting from scratch
and creating custom
artwork, lettering, words.
I'm telling the story
in a way that I think
is artistic and creative,
creating imagery, photo and everything.
From start to end is custom and unique,
and it is speech.
Everything that I create is expressive.
And and Colorado agrees
that what I create is speech.
Well, I want to talk,
but there is that moment.
Amy Coney Barrett, of course,
seemed to talk
about the strongest part of your argument
with the idea of it
being related to custom.
You can imagine if it were a template,
a very different scenario,
probably ensuing at that point in time.
I know you wanted to make a point.
I am curious, though,
in terms of you mentioned LGBTQ
plus people would be protected as well
in terms of what your
your vision is
and that they would
not have to create things
that they were opposed to as well.
Do you think that members of the LGBTQ
community
believe that your message
is actually promoting
what they would stand for as well?
Or are you taking a step back and
saying, look,
this is about free speech broadly?
You keep focusing on the message?
Is that what you think the message is?
That as long as you have LGBTQ clients,
as long as you are an artist,
that you're allowed
to not follow that particular law?
I serve everyone.
I cannot create every message.
And what the law is saying is that
you have to speak a message
that's approved by the government
that should be concerning to all of us.
Everyone should be free
to create unique expression artwork
that's consistent with what they believe
and that protects me and protects
LGB website designer
Nobody should be forced
to create a message,
custom artwork expression
that goes against their beliefs.
Whether those beliefs
are similar to mine or different
So when there is you know,
there are people
who are obviously married
and are in same sex relationships.
And I love
I know you want to jump in here.
I invite you in this conversation.
Of course,
What do you
say to the retort that says, look,
this is discrimination.
You have a product,
but you just don't want to sell it to me
because I'm a same sex member of a couple
because a product isn't
the same as speech.
And certainly public accommodation laws
apply to millions
of transactions every day.
But when we're talking
about asking someone
to use their
heart their head in their hand
to imagine and create a message
using traditional blending
art with technology,
that speech, that's not just a product.
And just as the LGBT
designer doesn't
want to have to celebrate same sex
marriage or a pro-abortion photographer
doesn't want to have to film
or photograph a pro-life rally,
we all should have the freedom to decide
what ideas are worthy of expression.
It is the what, not the who.
That is the critical distinction.
We all can make message
based distinctions.
The First Amendment
has protected that for 100 years
and should continue to do so
for all of us.
That's how we have a free
and stable government.
It's how we have free and fearless
reasoning Government
can't tell us what to say and to do.
That seemed oh, excuse me.
That seemed to be
just as Gorsuch's position.
The idea of the who,
not the what, not the who.
But I do wonder
at what point can someone say
I'm an artist and not really be one?
My question really is what is art?
I mean, obviously,
I'm not disparaging your art form.
I had a wedding website.
I understand it. It's a whole thing.
I know
you're an artist,
but what is to distinguish
you from somebody saying, well,
you know what?
Look,
my macaroni and cheese in this restaurant
is a work of art.
This pie is a work of art.
The way that I
have made
my clothing
in this boutique works of art.
So you know what?
I don't want somebody in here
who's gay,
who's black,
who's Jewish, who's disabled.
What is the line
that distinguishes, say, you,
from the artist
that somebody could
under the auspices
of saying they're an artist,
do the same thing?
Do you have those concerns?
Well, I can only speak to myself
and and I've made it clear
I work with everyone.
I have clients who identify as LGBT.
And what I'm seeking is that
the court step in to protect everyone's
right to speak freely.
The court has already determined
these test.
Every free speech case determines
whether it's speech or conduct.
The law is well-established to determine
that is a message being communicated.
Is it in a medium
that we're used to seeing that
we know words, text and graphics,
that speech?
If we're talking about some macaroni
and cheese dish,
that's not speech
and that's an easy call
for the court to make.
And they've been making those calls
for many, many years
under the First Amendment.
You haven't had a mac and cheese.
First of all,
you don't know what it says to you.
But in reality,
I mean, I know we're out of time,
but I really
want to hone in on this point,
because you've made this point
about the idea of having LGBTQ clients
Have they expressed a
reaction to what you're doing?
And are they supportive or not?
Well, I've been in business
for over a decade,
and I have had clients
who identify as LGBT for quite some time.
I think it's important to note
that there are people across the spectrum
who hold the same view as marriage,
who hold a different view of marriage.
Who are standing up to support this case
because they recognize
that everyone should be free
to communicate and create
consistent with what they believe.