The Supreme Court. Washington Blade file photo by Michael Key.
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority ruled June 30 against LGBTQ+ rights in favor of a Christian graphic artist.
Designer Laurie Smith argued that a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender, and other characteristics violated her rights to free speech. The Court ruled 6-3 for Smith.
Smith and her supporters had argued that without this ruling artists and creative people would be forced to do work against their beliefs.
Smith’s opponents had warned that a ruling like this would allow for a range of discrimination by business, refusing to serve Black, Jewish or Muslim customers, interracial or interfaith couples or immigrants.
Kristen Waggoner, Smith’s lawyer, said in a statement, “Disagreement isn’t discrimination, and the government can’t mislabel speech as discrimination to censor it.”
The decision is another win for religious rights following a series of cases that has seen SCOTUS side with religious plaintiffs. It followed the body’s decision to strike down affirmative action in higher education and preceded its decision against President Joe Biden’s student debt relief program.
Equality Florida addressed the limiting of protections for LGBTQ+ people in a statement release:
“For decades, public accommodations law has guaranteed that businesses open to the public should be open to all on equal terms. While today’s ruling does not change that principle, it does create a foothold for refusing customized, “expressive services” that would compel the creator to share a message with which they disagree. The Court had an opportunity to do right by nondiscrimination protections and the LGBTQ community, but chose instead to limit those protections.
Importantly, the ruling neither creates a broad license to discriminate nor wholesale repeals vital civil rights protections. LGBTQ people deserve to participate in the public marketplace just like everyone else, regardless of this ruling. The LGBTQ community fought bravely for the equal rights that a party to this case objected to recognizing, and we will continue to fight for full equality in every quarter.”
Members of the Williams Institute that were available to comment released their statements in a joint press release.
“The Supreme Court’s decision today firmly establishes an exemption to anti-discrimination laws,” said Elana Redfield, Federal Policy Director at the Williams Institute. “If a service is ‘expressive’—which the court finds a wedding website to be—a business may now deny that service in some circumstances, even if it harms LGBT people or other protected groups.”
Imani Rupert-Gordon, executive director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, released a statement on the organization’s website immediately following the announcement of the decision:
“While the Court’s holding is narrow and will apply only to a very small number of businesses, the dissenting justices rightly stress that the decision creates an unprecedented exception to nondiscrimination laws. This decision is out of step with the values held by the great majority of people in this country, who understand that discrimination has no more place in the public marketplace than it has in workplaces, government, or schools. We join the dissenting justices in calling on business owners to live out the values of equality and fairness and to affirm their commitment to serving all, without regard to race, age, nationality, religion, disability, sexual orientation, or gender. We are stronger together and we are confident that this disappointing decision will be no more than an unfortunate footnote in our nation’s ongoing commitment to realizing the ideals of freedom and equality for all.”
Jennifer C. Pizer, Lambda Legal Chief Legal Officer, released this statement regarding the Affirmative Action decision and today’s.
“Unlike yesterday’s affirmative action travesty, today’s smug attack on civil rights law will have limited practical impact in the marketplace because few commercial services involve original artwork and pure speech offered as limited commissions. But today’s narrow decision does continue the Court majority’s dangerous siren call to those trying to return the country to the social and legal norms of the Nineteenth Century because it jettisons without even acknowledging what was part of the legal test for decades.”
The LGBTQ+ Victory Fund kept the message simple with their reaction.
Politics over precedent once again.
— LGBTQ+ Victory Fund (@VictoryFund) June 30, 2023
Clarence Thomas warned us his Court would come for LGBTQ+ equality. We can no longer count on #SCOTUS to protect our hard-won rights.
See y’all at the ballot box. https://t.co/VmqipGKii8
GLAAD reminded companies to treat everyone with respect as well as calling on those in the community to go out and vote.
Regardless of SCOTUS’ ‘303 Creative’ ruling, we call on all fair-minded business owners to condemn discrimination and ensure freedom and inclusion for everyone.
— GLAAD (@glaad) June 30, 2023
The Trevor Project took to this tread to remind of their mission to help those youths in the community.
We know that news regarding recent SCOTUS decisions may be difficult to process & may have a long-lasting impact on marginalized young people, including LGBTQ youth. The Trevor Project is committed to working toward a future where all young people have an equal chance to succeed.
— The Trevor Project (@TrevorProject) June 30, 2023
The Human Rights Campaign addressed the danger in the decision:
BREAKING: In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court has issued a ruling in 303 Creative undermining non-discrimination protections for LGBTQ+ people and other marginalized communities.
— Human Rights Campaign (@HRC) June 30, 2023
This is a dangerous step backward and gives some businesses the license to discriminate. pic.twitter.com/vQ5YNdAJDI
You can read more about the case, including President Biden’s response, here.
