On Monday, the Supreme Court will take up the case of a graphic designer who wants to launch a website business to celebrate weddings but does not want to deal with same-sex couples, revisiting the junction of LGBTQ rights and religious liberty.
Supporters of LGBTQ rights worry that the 6-3 conservative majority, which recently reversed a nearly 50-year-old abortion precedent, may be aiming to ultimately overturn Obergefell v. Hodges, a historic 2015 ruling that paved the door for same-sex marriage worldwide.
A bill that mandates states to recognise another state’s legal marriage in the event Obergefell is ever overturned is anticipated to pass the House this week. President Joe Biden would then sign the legislation at the White House.
Mary Bonauto, senior counsel for the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation, told AWN in an interview, “I am concerned.” “I am just concerned because the Court seems to be groping for cases and rewriting established law repeatedly,” the author said.
For instance, Justice Clarence Thomas specifically requested that the court reconsider Obergefell after Roe v. Wade was overturned.
The designer Lorie Smith, whose company is named 303 Creative, is on one side of the argument. She claims that she has put off expanding into the wedding industry because she is concerned about breaking a Colorado statute governing public accommodations. She claims that the law forces her to make statements that go against her moral principles. Smith, according to the government and advocates for LGBTQ rights, is merely looking for permission to discriminate in the workplace.
A Colorado baker refused to produce a cake for a same-sex wedding four years ago, citing religious objections. The court then heard that case.
However, that 7-2 decision in the baker’s favour was limited to the particulars of that case and did not universally applicable to other conflicts across the country. The same state’s Anti-Discrimination Act is currently the subject of a new review by the justices. The law prohibits businesses from turning away customers based on their sexual orientation.
Although Smith claims she is open to working with everyone, regardless of their sexual orientation, she declines to develop websites that promote same-sex unions.
In an interview with AWN, Smith said, “The state of Colorado is pressuring me to make special, distinctive artwork promoting and celebrating a different vision of marriage, a perspective that goes against my firmly held views.
The issue of whether Smith’s right to the free exercise of religion was violated by the legislation was sidestepped by the Supreme Court when it decided to hear the case in February. Instead, the court declared that it will examine the controversy through the prism of free speech and determine if using the public accommodations legislation “to compel an artist to speak or stay silent” is in violation of the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech.
Smith’s attorney, Kristen K. Waggoner, claimed in court documents that the rule violates the First Amendment by “compelling speech the government favours and silencing speech the government hates.” She claimed that the state may interpret its rules so that speakers “who serve all people” could decline particular projects depending on their message. She said that this would remove status discrimination “without coercing or silencing speech.”
Twenty states have submitted filings as friends of the court supporting Smith. They assert that they have rules governing public accommodations, but these laws exempt companies that specialise in producing personalised artwork.
According to Smith, she has created a website outlining how her choice is motivated by her conviction that a marriage should only be between one man and one woman. Waggoner alleges in court documents that the reason she has not yet released the statement is because she is concerned that she would break the law’s “publication clause,” which forbids a business from making any communication that suggests a service may be refused based on sexual orientation.
Smith’s case was rejected by the lower court. Although a variety of religions and practises “enriches our society,” the state has a compelling interest in “protecting its citizens from the damages of discrimination,” according to the 10th US Circuit Court of Appeals.
Judge Timothy Tymovich’s dissent will undoubtedly be studied by the present court’s conservative members.
The majority “takes the astonishing – and new opinion that the government may force Ms. Smith to generate communications that offend her conscience,” he said.
He came to the conclusion that the government could control the messages that all artists convey.
In court documents, Colorado Solicitor General Eric Olson claimed that the law does not restrict or compel expression. Instead, he asserted, it governs business practises to guarantee that all clients can engage in regular commercial transactions regardless of their religion, race, disability, or other traits.
According to him, when Smith attempts to make a public announcement stating why she would not design wedding websites for same-sex couples, that is equivalent to posting a “white applicants only” sign, as the law protects consumers’ “equal access and equal dignity.”
The legislation, he said, does not seek to stifle any message Smith might choose to convey. Instead, 303 Creative is allowed to choose the design services it provides and whether or not it uses religious quotations on its wedding websites to express its image of marriage. But more importantly, the law obliges the business to make its goods and services available to everyone.
Bonauto also cautioned about a precipice.
Will the Protestant baker who refuses to prepare the First Communion cake be present? stated Bonauto. Do you want the school’s professional photographer, who declines to photograph some youngsters because of their job obligations?
Colorado is backed by 22 additional states that also have identical legislation.
Public accommodations laws “guarantee equal access to the Nation’s commercial life by ensuring that all Americans can acquire whatever products and services they choose on the same terms and conditions as are offered to other members of the public,” according to the Biden Justice Department, which will take part in the oral arguments. Colorado is supported by this statement.
By July, a resolution to the dispute is anticipated.
