In a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court sided with a Christian web designer from Colorado who cited religious objections for refusing to create websites for same-sex weddings. Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote the majority opinion, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, as well as Justices Samuel Alito, Amy Coney Barrett, Brett Kavanaugh, and Clarence Thomas. Justice Sonia Sotomayor authored a dissenting opinion, which was supported by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson.
The recent ruling by the Supreme Court came in the case of 303 Creative v. Elenis. Lorie Smith, the owner of 303 Creative, aimed to extend her business to include wedding services and wrote a webpage explaining her refusal to create websites for same-sex couples. However, due to a Colorado public accommodations law, she was unable to publish the statement as the state deemed it unlawful.
The Supreme Court’s decision, which is based on free speech principles, will have an impact on state public accommodation laws concerning businesses that sell ‘expressive’ goods. This ruling marks another success for religious conservatives within the Supreme Court and may raise concerns among critics who worry that the court is targeting the 2015 marriage case for potential overturning.
According to reports, Justice Neil Gorsuch stated that ‘the First Amendment envisions the United States as a rich and diverse place where individuals have the freedom to think and speak as they choose, rather than as the government dictates.’ He further criticized Colorado for attempting to ‘deny that promise.’
Justice Gorsuch emphasized that the First Amendment safeguards a wide range of speech, including forms such as pictures, films, paintings, drawings, engravings, oral expression, and written content. He stated that this protection should equally apply to speech like that of Ms. Smith, which is conveyed over the Internet.
The court’s ruling coincided with the conclusion of Pride Month, an annual celebration honoring the LGBTQ community and its ongoing fight for equality throughout June.
In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor expressed concern that the ruling would undermine the government’s crucial interest in ensuring equal access to the public marketplace for all Americans. She highlighted that this decision represents the first time the Court has granted a business the constitutional right to refuse service to individuals from a protected class.
Specifically, she noted that the Court’s interpretation of the First Amendment exempts a website design company from a state law that prohibits the denial of wedding websites to same-sex couples if the company offers those services to the public. Sotomayor regarded this as a regrettable day for American constitutional law and for the lives of LGBT individuals. She argued that by granting a new form of discrimination in a case brought by a company seeking to deny same-sex couples full and equal access to its services, the decision symbolically places gays and lesbians in a second-class status.
In her dissent, Sotomayor highlighted significant milestones in the decades-long LGBTQ movement. She discussed the need for the laws under consideration in the case, citing examples such as the tragic murder of Matthew Shepard and the devastating Pulse nightclub shooting, which marked the second-deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history.
Sotomayor emphasized that a notable development has been the inclusion of sexual orientation and gender identity in public accommodations laws. She stressed that the LGBTQ community seeks equal treatment rather than special privileges, aiming to exist in public spaces on equal terms and conditions as everyone else.
The recent ruling has faced swift condemnation from LGBTQ advocates, who argue, in line with Sotomayor’s dissent, that it grants certain businesses the ability to discriminate against members of the community. Human Rights Campaign President Kelley Robinson expressed concern, stating that the Supreme Court’s decision represents a dangerous regression, as it empowers businesses to discriminate based on who individuals are.
Robinson emphasized the importance of creating safe and inclusive commercial spaces, noting that the Court’s decision demonstrates its radical and disconnected stance, particularly when 80 percent of Americans support comprehensive nondiscrimination laws that include protections for LGBTQ+ individuals. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) echoed these sentiments, stating via Twitter that the ruling enables certain businesses to discriminate when providing customized and expressive services. The ACLU highlighted that this is the first time the Court has allowed a public-facing business to reject customers in defiance of nondiscrimination laws.
In a previous case five years ago, the court examined a similar situation where a Colorado baker declined to create a cake for a same-sex wedding due to religious beliefs. The ruling at that time, which favored the baker by a 7-2 margin, was based on the specific circumstances of that case and did not establish a widespread precedent for similar conflicts across the country. According to the law, businesses are generally not allowed to deny service to individuals based on their sexual orientation.
FAQs:
Q1: What is LGBTQ?
LGBTQ is a term that represents a diverse group of sexual orientations and gender identities. It is an abbreviation for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer, questioning, intersex, and asexual. This inclusive acronym serves as an umbrella term to encompass a wide spectrum of individuals and experiences.
Q2: What is SCOTUS?
SCOTUS is a shortened form for the Supreme Court of the United States, which holds the highest authority in the federal judicial system of the United States. This court has the final jurisdiction to review and make decisions on all federal court cases and state court cases that involve matters of U.S. Constitutional or federal law.
