There is a web designer who wanted to discriminate against gay clients

Does the First Amendment Cover Speech? The Case of Twitter v. Taamneh before the New Supermajority ruled against the Colorado Supreme Court in a case of discrimination

Is this a sign that the justices are sympathetic to social network operators who don’t want to host hate speech or misinformation? We’re living under the law of the YOLO Court, so I have no idea. There’s a huge range of reasonable and less-than-reasonable distinctions you could draw between an individual website designer (who hadn’t even designed any wedding sites when the suit was filed) and some of the largest communications platforms on the planet. Section 230 was left alone by the Supreme Court in its decision in the case of Twitter v. Taamneh. The court will probably repeat its words back to it soon.

Smith believes that marriage should only be between a man and a woman because of her faith and she did not want to create websites that violated her faith. Colorado said it didn’t want to dictate what Smith said in her web designs, but that if her business is open to the public–as it is–it had to serve everyone.

The idea that the case is about speech is called out in the Dissenting opinion delivered by Justice Sotomayor. The act of discrimination has not constituted protected expression under the First Amendment because the law in question targets conduct, not speech, for regulation. “Our Constitution contains no right to refuse service to a disfavored group.”

This year, however, the new conservative supermajority reached out in an unusually aggressive manner, agreeing to decide a case in which nobody had yet filed a claim of discrimination.

The court ruled against the state and for the web designer in a decision that could have profound consequences in Colorado as well as 29 other states that have laws requiring businesses to serve everyone, regardless of race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation.