The Supreme Court just made a ruling that has sparked controversy. They declared that a website designer has the right to refuse services for same-sex weddings, even though Colorado has a non-discrimination law in place. While the court argued that this decision falls within the designer’s First Amendment rights, LGBTQ activists see it as a setback for their community. The Human Rights Campaign expressed their concern, stating, “This is a dangerous step backward and gives some businesses the license to discriminate.” The court was divided 6-3 along ideological lines, as outlined in the ruling (read it here).
, The case itself was somewhat hypothetical, as no same-sex couple had actually approached the web designer, Lorie Smith, to create a wedding site. Smith wanted to expand her graphic design business to cater to couples seeking wedding websites, but she had concerns about being forced to create sites for same-sex couples against her beliefs. To address this, she filed a lawsuit seeking an injunction to prevent Colorado from applying a public accommodation anti-discrimination statute to her situation.
, The majority of the court argued that if the state had forced Smith to create same-sex wedding websites against her beliefs, it would violate her freedom of expression. Justice Neil Gorsuch, in the majority opinion, wrote, “In this case, Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.” He emphasized that tolerance, not coercion, should be the guiding principle in our nation. According to him, the First Amendment envisions a diverse society where individuals are free to express their thoughts and beliefs without government interference. However, Justice Sonia Sotomayor dissented, stating, “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.” She expressed concern that this decision could lead to further discrimination against various groups.
, Sotomayor argued that the law in question is meant to regulate conduct, not speech, and that discrimination has never been considered protected expression under the First Amendment. She pointed out that our Constitution does not grant the right to refuse service to any particular group. Smith, on the other hand, maintained that she is willing to work with anyone regardless of their race, creed, sexual orientation, or gender. However, she drew the line at creating content that contradicted her religious beliefs about marriage. Gorsuch defended Smith’s position, stating, “Doubtless, determining what qualifies as expressive activity protected by the First Amendment can sometimes raise difficult questions. But this case presents no complication of that kind. The parties have stipulated that Ms. Smith seeks to engage in expressive activity. And the Tenth Circuit has recognized her services involve ‘pure speech.'”
The outcome of this ruling did not come as a surprise, considering the arguments presented during oral hearings. Sotomayor expressed concern that the majority’s logic could extend beyond discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, potentially leading to the exclusion of other groups from various services. She gave examples of how a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement for a disabled couple or how a retail store could limit their family portrait services to “traditional” families. LGBTQ activists and President Joe Biden share these concerns, worrying that this decision could make it harder to enforce anti-discrimination laws. Biden stated, “I’m deeply concerned that the decision could invite more discrimination against LGBTQI+ Americans. More broadly, today’s decision weakens long-standing laws that protect all Americans against discrimination in public accommodations — including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith, and women.”
