By JESSICA GRESKO
In a significant ruling that impacts gay rights, the Supreme Court’s conservative majority decided on Friday that a Christian graphic artist, Lorie Smith, has the right to refuse working with same-sex couples when designing wedding websites. The court’s liberal justices dissented, arguing that this decision creates a hierarchy of inequality for gays and lesbians and potentially paves the way for further discrimination.
In a 6-3 ruling, the court upheld Smith’s right to decline working on websites for same-sex weddings, despite a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender, and other characteristics. The court determined that compelling Smith to create these websites would violate her freedom of speech protected by the First Amendment.
This ruling extends beyond websites and applies to artists, photographers, videographers, and writers who provide expressive services. The court differentiates these professions from businesses that are not engaged in speech, such as restaurants and hotels, which are not covered by the First Amendment.
According to Justice Neil Gorsuch, who authored the majority opinion, the First Amendment envisions a diverse society where individuals are free to express their thoughts without government interference. He emphasized that the freedom to express one’s thoughts is a cherished liberty that strengthens the Republic.
This decision is seen as a victory for religious rights and aligns with a series of recent cases where the court has sided with religious plaintiffs. In 2022, for example, the court ruled in favor of a football coach’s right to pray on the field at his public high school after games. Just yesterday, the court unanimously protected workers who request religious accommodations, using the case of a Christian mail carrier who objected to delivering Amazon packages on Sundays.
However, this decision is also viewed as a setback for gay rights. Over the past three decades, the court has expanded LGBTQ rights, notably granting same-sex couples the right to marry in 2015 and affirming in a decision also written by Justice Gorsuch, that a landmark civil rights law protects gay, lesbian, and transgender individuals from employment discrimination.
Justice Gorsuch cautioned that ruling against Smith would enable the government to compel artists, speechwriters, and others to express viewpoints contrary to their beliefs under the threat of punishment. For instance, a gay website designer could be forced to create websites for an organization that opposes same-sex marriage. He argued that countless other creative professionals could face similar dilemmas.
However, dissenting liberal justices led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor voiced concerns that this decision opens the door to discrimination by a range of businesses. Sotomayor stated that for the first time, the court grants a business a constitutional right to refuse service to members of a protected class. She warned that the decision’s logic extends beyond sexual orientation or gender identity and could be applied to interracial couples, disabled couples, and non-traditional families.
President Joe Biden expressed disappointment in the ruling, stating that it weakens longstanding laws protecting all Americans, including people of color, people with disabilities, people of faith, and women, from discrimination in public accommodations.
Sotomayor underscored the court’s history with gay rights in her dissent, describing this as a step backward that marks gays and lesbians for second-class status.
While the court has expanded gay rights, it has also emphasized the importance of respecting differing religious views. In the court’s gay marriage decision, Justice Anthony Kennedy acknowledged the belief held by reasonable and sincere people that marriage is between one man and one woman.
In the present case, the court returned to this principle, siding with Lorie Smith and asserting that the government cannot coerce individuals into expressing beliefs they disagree with. Smith, the owner of 303 Creative in Colorado, argued that being forced to create websites celebrating same-sex marriages violated her First Amendment rights. The Supreme Court agreed.
Overall, this ruling has implications for the balance between religious freedom and anti-discrimination laws. It will undoubtedly shape future debates and legal battles on these contentious issues.
The case is 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476.
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.
