[ad_1]
In a defeat for gay rights, the Conservative majority ruled on the Supreme Court On Friday a Christian graphic artist who wants to design wedding websites can refuse to work with same-sex couples. One of the court’s liberal justices wrote in dissent that the effect of the decision is to “distinguish gays and lesbians to second-class status” and that the decision opens the door to further discrimination.
The court ruled 6-3 on designer Laurie Smith, saying she can refuse to design locations for same-sex weddings despite a Colorado law that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation, race, gender and other characteristics. The court said forcing her to create the websites violated her First Amendment rights to free speech.
The decision notes that artists, photographers, videographers and writers are among those who can refuse to provide what the court has called expressive services if it goes against their beliefs. But this differs from other businesses that do not participate in the Speech and are therefore not covered by the First Amendment, such as restaurants and hotels.
Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote to the court’s six conservative justices that the First Amendment “envisions the United States as a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they please, not as the government demands.” Gorsuch said the court has long held that “the opportunity to think for ourselves and express those thoughts freely is among our dearest freedoms and part of what keeps our republic strong.”
The decision is a win for religious rights and one of a series of cases in recent years in which judges have sided with religious plaintiffs. Last year, for example, the court ruled on the ideological grounds of a football coach who was praying on the field at his public high school after games. And on Thursday, the court in a unanimous decision used the case of a Christian mail carrier that did not want to deliver Amazon packages on Sunday to strengthen protections for workers requesting religious accommodations.
The decision is also a retraction of gay rights for the court. For nearly three decades, the Court has expanded LGBT rights, most notably by granting same-sex couples the right to marry in 2015 and declaring five years later in a decision Gorsuch wrote that a landmark civil rights law also protects gays and lesbians. Transgender and occupational discrimination.
But in the latter decision, Gorsuch said that a ruling against Smith would allow the government to “compel all kinds of artists, speechwriters, and others whose services include speech to speak what they do not believe in under penalty of punishment.” For example, a gay web designer might be forced to design websites for an organization that advocates for same-sex marriage, he wrote. “There are countless other creative professionals, too, who can be forced to choose between remaining silent, producing speech that violates their beliefs, or speaking out and being sanctioned for doing so.”
Liberal opposing court justices led by Justice Sonia Sotomayor warned that the decision would allow a group of companies to discriminate.
“Today, the Court grants, for the first time in its history, a corporation open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve individuals of a protected class,” Sotomayor wrote in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Justice Kitangi Brown Jackson. .
Sotomayor, who read a summary of her dissent in court to underline her disagreement, said the reasoning for the decision “cannot be limited to discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity.” A web designer could refuse to create a wedding website for an interracial couple, a stationer could refuse to sell a birth announcement to a disabled couple, and a large retailer could limit its personal services to “traditional” families, she wrote.
President Joe Biden said in a statement that the ruling was “disappointing,” adding that it “weakens applicable laws that protect all Americans from discrimination in public — including people of color, people with disabilities, religious people, and women.”
Noting the court’s history with the gay rights issue in her dissent, Sotomayor wrote: “The gay rights movement has made historic strides, and I’m proud of the role this court recently played in that history. Today, though, we’re taking steps back.”
“Today is a sad day in American constitutional law and in gay life. … The immediate and symbolic effect of the decision is to assign gays and lesbians to second-class status,” she wrote at another time.
Although it expanded the rights of LGBT people, the court was careful to say that those with different religious views should be respected. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the court’s decision on same-sex marriage.
The court returned to this idea five years ago when it faced the case of a Christian baker who objected to designing a cake for a same-sex wedding. The court issued a limited ruling in favor of baker Jack Phillips, saying there was impermissible hostility toward his religious views when considering his case. Phillips’ attorney, Christine Wagner of the Freedom Defense Alliance, also brought the latest case to court. On Friday, she said the Supreme Court was right to reaffirm that the government cannot force people to say things they don’t believe in.
“Discord is not discrimination, and the government cannot label speech as discrimination in order to censor it,” it said in a statement.
While basking in her legal win, Smith had to answer questions about the revelation this week that a man her legal team said requested a wedding location he never asked to work with.
The request, from someone identified as “Stewart,” was not the basis of a federal lawsuit that Smith preemptively filed before she began wedding websites, but it was referred to by her attorneys.
Stewart told the Associated Press he had never filed the application and was unaware his name was being cited in the lawsuit until he was contacted this week by The New Republic, which first reported his denial.
“I was incredibly surprised by the fact that I had been happily married to a woman for the past fifteen years,” he said. He declined to give his last name for fear of harassment and threats. He is not included in court documents that include his phone number and email address.
Wagner said the wedding proposal to name Stewart was made via Smith’s website and denied it was fabricated. The lawyer indicated that it might be a dwarf who made the request.
Smith, who owns a design firm in Colorado called 303 Creative, doesn’t currently build wedding websites. She said she wanted to but her Christian faith would prevent her from creating websites celebrating same-sex marriage. And this is where I bumped into state law.
Colorado, like most other states, has a law that prevents businesses open to the public from discriminating against customers. About half of the states have laws that explicitly prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. Colorado said that under a so-called public residence law, if Smith makes wedding locations public, she must make them available to all clients, regardless of sexual orientation. Companies that violate the law can be fined, among other things. Smith argued that applying the law to her violated her First Amendment rights, and the Supreme Court agreed.
[ad_2]
