The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent conservative-majority ruling allowing certain businesses to refuse services for same-sex marriages has triggered a contentious debate regarding its potential impact beyond the LGBTQ community. The court’s liberal justices argue that this decision could have far-reaching consequences for a range of customers, while experts remain divided on the extent of its ripple effect.
In a 6-3 ruling authored by conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch, Friday’s decision offered protection to Lorie Smith, a web designer from the Denver area, who opposed creating websites for same-sex marriages based on her Christian faith. This ruling came despite Colorado’s anti-discrimination law, which seeks to ensure equal treatment of all customers by businesses that serve the public.
Justice Gorsuch concluded that requiring businesses engaged in speech-related services to express messages that contradict their beliefs would violate the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment, which safeguards freedom of speech. In his written opinion, Gorsuch stated, “Colorado seeks to force an individual to speak in ways that align with its views but defy her conscience about a matter of major significance.”
Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act prohibits businesses open to the public from denying goods or services based on factors such as race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, and other specified characteristics. Additionally, businesses must display a notice indicating their compliance with the Act. The case centered around Smith’s argument that it targeted messages rather than individuals, asserting that business owners who express their creativity through their work should have the right to decline certain messages while not discriminating based on personal status.
However, critics of the ruling contend that the distinction between message and status may not be as clear-cut as claimed and could potentially lead to the targeting of individuals rather than mere messages. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a scathing dissent joined by liberal Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, warned that the ruling effectively granted a “license to discriminate.” Sotomayor further asserted that it not only hindered LGBT rights but also inflicted “stigmatic harm” by reminding them of the limited spaces where they could truly be themselves.
According to Sotomayor, the ruling’s rationale extends beyond discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity, potentially excluding other groups from accessing various services. She provided examples of interracial couples, disabled individuals, and people in non-traditional families who could face discrimination from businesses. Colorado Attorney General Phil Weiser echoed these concerns, highlighting scenarios where a payroll company may refuse service to women-owned businesses or a bookseller of religious texts may decline sales to a member of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
Justice Gorsuch dismissed these concerns as “Pure fiction all,” emphasizing that the case at hand focused on Smith’s expressive work and her intention to provide customized speech for each client. While acknowledging that determining protected expressive activity can sometimes present challenges, Gorsuch maintained that this case did not pose such complexities.
LGBT rights group Lambda Legal denounced the ruling, but they also acknowledged that its impact would be limited due to the specific nature of commissions and original artwork and speech involved in Smith’s case. However, they expressed concern over the broader implications of the court majority’s inclination towards regressing to societal and legal norms of the 19th century.
Constitutional law and free speech expert Amanda Shanor from the University of Pennsylvania’s Wharton School characterized the ruling as narrow, failing to address how to differentiate between regulations of speech and conduct, message and status. Shanor anticipated that the ruling would likely lead to increased litigation surrounding these issues.
As the nation grapples with the aftermath of this Supreme Court ruling, the debate surrounding the balance between religious freedom, freedom of speech, and anti-discrimination protections continues, with implications that extend well beyond the realm of same-sex wedding services.