The Supreme Court recently made a decision in favor of a Christian graphic designer who refused to create wedding websites for gay or lesbian couples. In the case of 303 Creative v. Elenis, Justice Neil Gorsuch, writing for a conservative majority, stated that Colorado’s anti-discrimination law violated the designer’s right to free speech. The court argued that Colorado was trying to force the designer to speak in a way that conflicted with her conscience on a significant matter.
This ruling marks a significant turning point in the ongoing conflict between religious business owners and states aiming to protect the LGBTQ+ community. Similar issues arose in 2018 when a Colorado baker refused to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple, and the court ruled in favor of the baker on narrow grounds, avoiding the broader free speech question.
The recent ruling has potentially far-reaching implications. Over 20 states, including New York and California, have anti-discrimination laws similar to Colorado’s. By allowing for a free speech exemption from these laws, the Supreme Court’s decision poses a threat to efforts aimed at protecting the LGBTQ+ community from hate and violence.
Both the Colorado baker and the graphic designer in the 303 Creative case were represented by lawyers from the Alliance Defending Freedom, an organization focused on protecting religious freedom, free speech, the sanctity of life, parental rights, and traditional marriage and family values.
Critics argue that the 303 Creative ruling is legally questionable. The graphic designer, Lorie Smith, was not compelled to speak under Colorado’s anti-discrimination law; it was her own decision to operate a business open to the public that triggered the law’s requirement for equal treatment of gay and straight customers. Nonetheless, the court proceeded with a decision that reflects unwavering certainty.
However, the Supreme Court ruling is not set in stone. Progressive states still have the ability to amend their laws in order to protect gay and lesbian customers from discrimination without infringing on the expression of religious business owners.
Ms. Smith has consistently described her First Amendment rights as being violated by being forced to create a website that expresses a message she disagrees with. The court understood her claim in the same way, deeming Colorado’s attempt to compel her to speak against her beliefs unconstitutional.
States can address this issue by maintaining laws that prohibit sexual orientation discrimination while providing business owners like Ms. Smith the option to choose between completing a design or delegating it to someone else. The amended law should make it clear that business owners are not required to attach their names or brands to designs they object to.
This compromise is supported by a precedent set in the case of Kim Davis, a county clerk in Kentucky who refused to issue same-sex marriage licenses after the Supreme Court’s Obergefell v. Hodges ruling. By allowing other individuals in her office to issue the licenses on her behalf, a sensible middle ground was reached. Kentucky lawmakers enacted legislation that removed the names of county clerks from wedding licenses, ensuring equal treatment for all couples while respecting the moral objections of certain clerks.
Some may argue that even delegating the design to another employee or contractor would violate the First Amendment. However, Ms. Smith herself has stated that she would gladly refer gay and lesbian couples to another designer, undermining this argument. This approach also aligns with settled free-exercise precedent, as long as the delegation option is applied neutrally without regard to a business owner’s faith.
Although it may seem that Supreme Court rulings are final, there are still ways for the public to protect themselves through common-sense lawmaking. Lawmakers can take action to counter the court’s conservative majority by enacting legislation that aligns with mainstream American values. One example is the amendment made to Maine’s anti-discrimination law last year, which prevented the negative consequences of a Supreme Court decision that threatened the separation between church and state.
As the Supreme Court becomes increasingly disconnected from mainstream values, lawmakers across the country must continue to act within the bounds of the law to protect the rights and equality of all Americans. Striking a sensible compromise based on precedent is essential to balancing the expressive freedom of religious individuals and the rights of the LGBTQ+ community.
Denial of responsibility! VigourTimes is an automatic aggregator of Global media. In each content, the hyperlink to the primary source is specified. All trademarks belong to their rightful owners, and all materials to their authors. For any complaint, please reach us at – [email protected]. We will take necessary action within 24 hours.
