Supreme Court Appears Sympathetic To Anti-LGBTQ Web Designer

Not very good news today from the U.S. Supreme Court where justices heard oral arguments in the case of a Colorado web designer who doesn’t want to create wedding websites for same-sex couples. The woman in the case, 303 Creative v Elenis, says doing so would offend her “deeply held religious beliefs” – even though the state’s public accommodation law forbids discrimination based on sexual orientation. https://twitter.com/postpolitics/status/1599839226828361728 According to the Washington Post, the high court’s conservative majority seemed sympathetic to the woman’s argument.

Those justices seemed amenable to businesswoman Lorie Smith’s argument that the state may not compel her to create speech that violates her religious belief that marriage is only between a man and a woman.

But several appeared to be looking for ways to narrow their decision, saying both sides in the dispute agreed, for example, that not all wedding vendors should receive such exemptions.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. said during oral arguments that a win for Colorado would mean some businesses that provide custom speech for customers could be forced to “espouse things they loathe.”

https://twitter.com/randyslovacek/status/1599874353793208320 Also, there’s this from NBC News:

Justices in the conservative majority seemed generally supportive of the notion that Smith should not be forced to express sentiments to which she disagrees, with Justice Clarence Thomas noting that policing speech was not how public accommodations laws like Colorado’s were traditionally applied.

“This is is not a hotel. This is not a restaurant. This is not a riverboat or a train,” he said, referring to businesses required to service all customers. Other conservative justices, including Justices Brett Kavanaugh and Neil Gorsuch, asked similar questions.

It’s worth noting that NO ONE has asked Smith to create a website for a same-sex couple. This case was filed “preemptively” in case she MIGHT be asked in the future. Smith wants to be able to announce on her business website that she won’t create wedding websites for same-sex couples. Colorado Solicitor General Eric R. Olson argued that such an announcement would be akin to a store that sold only Christmas items posting a sign that said “No Jews allowed.” https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/1599590658771148800 This case has echoes of the last Colorado case concerning LGBTQ discrimination that came before the Supreme Court. That involved baker Jack Phillips who refused to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple. In that instance, the court issued a narrow ruling in Phillips’s favor. But the decision didn’t strike down the state’s anti-discrimination law which prohibits companies that are open to the public being able to deny goods or services to customers based on “disability, race, creed, color, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, national origin, or ancestry.” However, the court’s make-up has changed drastically since that decision. Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, who wrote the opinion in Phillips’s case, has retired. And Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who warned against treating same-sex and opposite-sex couples differently, has died. Their replacements fall squarely on the conservative side. Smith is being represented by the far-right, anti-LGBTQ law firm Alliance Defending Freedom. Some have posited that the case was filed with the intention of losing in lower courts (which is what happened) just so ADF could appeal to the conservative majority Supreme Court. ADF is designated an anti-LGBTQ extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. https://twitter.com/AnthonyMKreis/status/1599748706374660096