Legal Analysis: Supreme Court’s Narrow Interpretation in the Web Designer Case
“Reuters” — On Friday, in a decision that dealt a blow to LGBT rights, the Supreme Court sided with a web designer who had challenged a Colorado anti-discrimination law on the grounds that her Christian beliefs prevented her from providing services for same-sex weddings.
A lower court had denied Lorie Smith, a company owner in the Denver area, an exception from a Colorado law that bars discrimination based on sexual orientation and other characteristics, but the Supreme Court, in a 6-3 decision written by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, reversed that judgment.
Ms. Smith offers web design services through her company, 303 Creative. The First Amendment’s guarantee of free expression was at the heart of the argument.
For Justice Gorsuch, the United States is “a rich and complex place where all persons are free to think and speak as they wish, not as the government demands” under the First Amendment.
Three leftist judges on the court voted no. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in the dissent for the liberal bloc, said: “Today, the Court, for the first time in its history, grants a business open to the public a constitutional right to refuse to serve members of a protected class.”
On the last day of its term, which began in October, the court issued a judgement.
In this instance, the free expression rights of artists like Ms. Smith, whose enterprises provide public services, were set against the equal access to services enjoyed by LGBT individuals in the marketplace.
Littleton resident and evangelical Christian Ms. Smith has publicly stated her support for marriage exclusively between a man and a woman. Because she claimed she would be penalised for refusing to serve lesbian weddings in accordance with Colorado’s public accommodations statute, she filed a lawsuit against the state’s civil rights commission and other state officials in 2016.
There is a conservative majority of 6-3 on the court. In December, during oral arguments, the liberal justices on the court expressed concern that a ruling in favor of Ms. Smith could give some businesses license to discriminate.
Ms. Smith and her attorneys insist she is not biased, but rather rejects speech that goes against her Christian values.
Numerous legal scholars and civil rights organizations in Colorado expressed concern about a domino effect if Ms. Smith prevailed, which would allow discrimination not only on the basis of a company owner’s religious beliefs but also on the basis of the owner’s possible racist, sexist, or anti-religious sentiments.
Housing, hotels, shops, restaurants, and schools are all examples of “public accommodations” that are specifically targeted by anti-discrimination legislation that exist in many states. The original one was passed in Colorado in 1885. Businesses that are open to the public cannot discriminate against customers based on their race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, or other protected characteristics under the existing Anti-Discrimination Act.
The state of Colorado maintained that its Anti-Discrimination Act governs sales, not speech, in order to provide “equal access and equal dignity.” Ms. Smith may therefore sell whatever she pleases, including, but not limited to, websites that feature biblical verses supporting an intersex view of marriage.
The administration of Vice President Joe Biden, who is siding with Colorado in the case, contended that Ms. Smith’s request for an exemption was overbroad since she wanted the right to refuse to develop any form of wedding website for a same-sex couple.
Last year, Ms. Smith remarked, “My faith has taught me to love everyone, and that is why I work with everyone through my business. However, this limits the messages I can make.
The Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative Christian rights organization, has hired lawyers to represent Ms. Smith in court.
The court has sided with demands for religious freedom and free speech in previous years. Several landmark decisions in favor of LGBT rights have been handed down by the Supreme Court, including the countrywide legalization of gay marriage in 2015 and the declaration in 2020 that federal statute prohibiting workplace discrimination includes homosexual and transgender employees.
The verdict in Ms. Smith’s case was released the day after the court ruled in favor of another conservative Christian petitioner. A former mail carrier who was reprimanded for refusing to report to work on Sundays sued the United States Postal Service, alleging discrimination, and the court ruled in his favor in a unanimous decision (9-0).
Do you have anything to say about this story? Please let us know in the comments section below.
