The US Supreme Court ruled in a controversial and historic case on June 30th that a Christian web designer cannot be forced to make customized messages and websites that celebrate same-sex marriage under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Supreme Court rules for web designer who refused to work on same-sex weddings https://t.co/0rk7tZP3WX
— CNBC Now (@CNBCnow) June 30, 2023
This new ruling is among a series of controversial decisions centered around discrimination and civil rights that the Supreme Court recently made. On June 29th, the Court ruled against affirmative action in colleges and universities. A day after that, the Supreme Court struck down President Joe Biden’s plans to forgive $430 billion in student loan debt, a policy that could benefit 43 million Americans.
In a 6-3 vote split among ideological lines, the conservative-majority Supreme Court ruled in favor of Lorie Smith, an evangelical Christian web and graphic designer from Colorado. The case, 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, was first filed in 2016 when Smith, owner of 303 Creative, challenged a Colorado law prohibiting businesses from discriminating against LGBTQIA+ customers.
The same-sex couple in this case didn’t even exist. Conservatives want to feel oppressed so badly they’re literally just making up problems and taking them to the Supreme Court.
— Mitchell Goth (@Mitchell_Goth) June 30, 2023
Colorado’s Civil Rights Division argued that Smith could not deny her services to LGBTQIA+ customers under the state’s Anti-Discrimination Act. Smith used a hypothetical decision to argue that she cannot be compelled to design wedding websites for same-sex couples, as it would violate her freedom of expression and right to exercise her religious freedom.
Smith also preemptively filed her lawsuit to prevent Colorado from enforcing its Anti-Discrimination Act against her firm, as she hasn't made wedding websites for gay couples or turned down LGBTQIA+ customers. Instead, she raised her concerns on the matter as she planned to expand her business to include wedding websites as offerings.
Before the trial, Smith said that she was “willing to work with all people regardless of classifications such as race, creed, sexual orientation, and gender” and that she “will gladly create custom graphics and websites” for all clients, regardless of their sexual orientation. However, Smith insisted that she would not create content that “contradicts biblical truth,” and her complaint noted that she “believes that God is calling her to promote and celebrate His design for marriage… between one man and one woman only.”
Liberal authoritarians, you can't force anyone to work for you.
— Skeptical Redneck (@redneckskeptic) June 30, 2023
“Like many States, Colorado has a law forbidding businesses from engaging in discrimination when they sell goods and services to the public. Laws along these lines have done much to secure the civil rights of all Americans.” Supreme Court associate justice Neil Gorsuch wrote in the court’s majority opinion. “But in this particular case, Colorado does not just seek to ensure the sale of goods or services on equal terms. It seeks to use its law to compel an individual to create speech she does not believe. The question we face is whether that course violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.”
In her dissenting opinion, Supreme Court associate justice Sonia Sotomayor said, "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.”
They were going to produce this ruling sooner or later. They just got a little antsy waiting for a real case.
— Jeff martini (@martiniys) July 2, 2023
Whether businesses should be allowed to deny service to LGBTQIA+ customers on religious grounds has long been a subject of debate among activists, public officials, and business owners. In 2018, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Masterpiece Cakeshop, a bakery in Colorado owned by a Christian baker, after it refused to create a customized wedding cake for a same-sex couple because of the owner’s religious convictions.
