The state of Colorado will reportedly pay more than $1.5 million in legal fees to an anti-LGBTQ+ web designer who won the right to discriminate in the landmark Supreme Court case 303 Creative v. Elenis.In a statement, Bryan Neihart, senior counsel for the anti-LGBTQ+ hate group Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), which represented Smith, defended the practice of the victor in a civil rights case seeking legal fees from the losing side. Related GOP mailer bashed Ted Cruzs opponent for letting a trans girl play girls sports. It was all lies. Trans man Mack Beggs is incensed at how the GOP butchered his story. Our clients Lorie Smith and her design studio, 303 Creative, prevailed at the U.S. Supreme Court and achieved a landmark victory a victory that helps to protect all Americans freedom of speech from government censorship and coercion, Neihart said. Stay connected to your community Connect with the issues and events that impact your community at home and beyond by subscribing to our newsletter. Subscribe to our Newsletter today After Smith a Christian web designer sued the state of Colorado in 2016 over its anti-discrimination law the Supreme Court ruled that some small businesses have a free speech right to refuse service based on their personal beliefs. Smith argued her free speech was being stifled because she wanted to get into the wedding website business without serving LGBTQ+ customers because she believes that God is calling her to promote and celebrate His design for marriage between one man and one woman only.The Court said that Colorados LGBTQ+-inclusive anti-discrimination law cant be enforced against her for refusing to make websites for same-sex couples even if shes making similar websites for opposite-sex couples.After the decision, many argued the case was riddled with alleged lies. When Smith filed her suit, she said she had never made a wedding website, and no same-sex couple had asked her to make one for them. The state of Colorado brought that up to question her standing in the case and try to get it thrown out.Then, in early 2017, her lawyers at ADF said that she, in fact,hadreceived such a request from a man named Stewart, who wanted design work for his wedding with his fiance, Mike. They printed out the request received through Smiths website shortly after she filed her lawsuit which included his contact information. They submitted it to the court.But after the Court had already ruled, a journalist discovered that the man was straight, married to a woman, a web designer himself, lived in California, and had never heard of Smith or her case before. ADF called the revelation a lie and a desperate attempt to malign ADF, our client, and a critical ruling affirming all Americans free speech. ADF also argued that Smith didnt need to have received a request for a same-sex wedding website because her argument before the Court was that the mere existence of Colorados anti-discrimination law was enough to silence her speech.After the ruling, the progressive think tank Data for Progress asked people in a poll whether they support such exemptions to anti-discrimination law, and it turned out Americans largely disagreed with the decision. 65% of people said that a business should not be allowed to turn away clients based on their race, religion, disability, or sexual orientation, even if the business owner claims serving diverse people is against their personal beliefs.When asked about specific situations, over half of respondents still said that they are against discrimination. Data for Progress asked about whether a business should be allowed to refuse service if their services are used for a same-sex wedding, and only 42% of registered voters agreed, while 52% disagreed.Subscribe to theLGBTQ Nation newsletterand be the first to know about the latest headlines shaping LGBTQ+ communities worldwide.